Majority of American's think DNC war criticism is hurting our troops

[Justin_stacy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html?sub=AR
Sympathetic Vibrations

By Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin

Sunday, November 27, 2005; Page A04

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

This poll is one of the few pieces of supportive news the administration has had lately on Iraq. Most surveys have shown significant majorities believe it was a mistake to go to war, as well as rising sentiment that Bush misled Americans in making the case for it.

Even so, there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.

[open mind]

the majority of voters also voted for bush, so that tells you something about their intelligence..........oh i kill myself.....................blah

[bopst]

The war itself is bad for the troops...

[Cal Smith]

I wish they could poll the troops, I'd bet that percentage is higher among them.

[open mind]

i don't get the connection of how questioning the bush administration means troops get sad, but that's me.

[commatosa]

what a fucking thing to say. "the lack of support is hurting our troops." Actually, I think the bullets and the bombs hurt a little bit more. Fuckin idiots.

[Cal Smith]

what a fucking thing to say. "the lack of support is hurting our troops." Actually, I think the bullets and the bombs hurt a little bit more. Fuckin idiots.

I think the idiot would be the one comparing physical injury to a drop in morale.

[FScott]

If theres enough "skeptics" to the point where the majority of soldiers have to think about what there doing is right and there morale then maybe that should tell us something. Iraq was a mistake, we broke it down to build it up because we didn't find what we know is in Iran and Syria.

It seems to me that Cheney is trying to say shut up and just go along with us.

[justinevans]

i think the biggest problem is that the troops say all the "bad" things on american tv, but there is nothing on tv about the good things they've done. There is no longer incentive and there is a loss of care or pride - the lowering of morale.

[lostntheseethru]

I wish they could poll the troops, I'd bet that percentage is higher among them.

will you explain yourself a little more...i think i might agree and i have something to say on it but i wanna make sure we are both on the same page so that it doesnt come off as me trying to argue with you over this :)

[Kid Kilowatt]

Poll them about their thoughts on Iraq, and they'll come to the same conclusion some leaders have:

Immediate withdrawal is necessary.

[lostntheseethru]

Poll them about their thoughts on Iraq, and they'll come to the same conclusion some leaders have:

Immediate withdrawal is necessary.

yea i think its a lose/lose situation. i dont think keeping the troops there is helping, but i also dont think withdrawling them will help either. so when it comes down to it, withdrawling them is probably the best option for the US just because we are losing so many lives over there and its just causing everyone who is still at home to be bitter with the government and that wont help keep our country "safe" and running...i dunno if im making sense...it all sounds good in my head but i cant get whats in my head to sound right on here...

[gillianhsieh]

If theres enough "skeptics" to the point where the majority of soldiers have to think about what there doing is right and there morale then maybe that should tell us something. Iraq was a mistake, we broke it down to build it up because we didn't find what we know is in Iran and Syria.

if you are implying that we should have taken out Iran/Syria, then lets be honest here do you REALLY think the US would attack a country that has WMD?

[Cal Smith]

Poll them about their thoughts on Iraq, and they'll come to the same conclusion some leaders have:

Immediate withdrawal is necessary.

So do you think we're losing the war? If so I'd like to know how you've come to that conclusion.

[gillianhsieh]

i don't htink it means we're losing the war, it could mean that we're not progressing and that it would be a pointless issue to pursue.

but i don't see how we could pull out now. we fucked ourselves in the ass when we started the war.

[Cal Smith]

will you explain yourself a little more...i think i might agree and i have something to say on it but i wanna make sure we are both on the same page so that it doesnt come off as me trying to argue with you over this :)

I just think if you polled the troops you'd see an even higher than 70%

[Cal Smith]

i don't htink it means we're losing the war, it could mean that we're not progressing and that it would be a pointless issue to pursue.

but i don't see how we could pull out now. we fucked ourselves in the ass when we started the war.

Ok, if you're argument is we are not progressing I'd strongly disagree too. You've had a turn over of power, two or three elections (one in two weeks), a constitution passed, and you are starting to get more and more Sunni support (2 of these 4 things anti-war people said wouldnt happen either). According to the Pentagon in the last 2 months there have been 700 fighters killed and another 1500 captured. You've also got more Iraqi troops trained and taking over specific areas in Iraq.

This is progress and you can't deny that, whether you think it's enough progress is up to you. But if you don't think it's enough progress I'd like to know what you think is.

[lostntheseethru]

Ok, if you're argument is we are not progressing I'd strongly disagree too. You've had a turn over of power, two or three elections (one in two weeks), a constitution passed, and you are starting to get more and more Sunni support (2 of these 4 things anti-war people said wouldnt happen either). According to the Pentagon in the last 2 months there have been 700 fighters killed and another 1500 captured. You've also got more Iraqi troops trained and taking over specific areas in Iraq.
This is progress and you can't deny that, whether you think it's enough progress is up to you. But if you don't think it's enough progress I'd like to know what you think is.

i dont think its really enough progress. i mean i think it is awesome we have been able to help iraq overthrow hussain and what not, but i think things were done so hastely and greedily that it was done completely wrong...


I just think if you polled the troops you'd see an even higher than 70%

ok. i think you're right, but thats just a given really. i mean if someone spoke negatively about your job wouldnt it bring you down some? i think its hard for the US to be positive about this war anymore. i mean i know a lot of that has to be because we hear from the media more negative things than positive things.

im very very much anti-war, but i do understand that sometimes its the only solution or it comes as an absolute last resort. i also know that sometimes war has been the best thing to make for a better future in the area it has taken place. i dont think this war happend as an only solution or an absolute last resort, but i do know that if shit gets together this definately will be better for the area

[Cal Smith]

i dont think its really enough progress. i mean i think it is awesome we have been able to help iraq overthrow hussain and what not, but i think things were done so hastely and greedily that it was done completely wrong...

But why? It's fair enough you don't see it as being enough progress but if you can realize it's not enough progress you should also be able to realize what would be enough progress?

[Justin_stacy]

Poll them about their thoughts on Iraq, and they'll come to the same conclusion some leaders have:

Immediate withdrawal is necessary.

Nope. By the poll most American's aren't that stupid.

Even so, there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.

and if they'd poll the troops i'd bet the percentages would be even more lopsided.....

[lostntheseethru]

But why? It's fair enough you don't see it as being enough progress but if you can realize it's not enough progress you should also be able to realize what would be enough progress?

im not sure. this is why im in no way critisizing much of what anyone thinks or says on here. im not one who can get into an extreme political arguement and be able to back myself up 100%. i know this and i think that is a key idea for most people. im not trying to run my mouth and say EVERYONE IS WRONG!!! because i know that would be completely stupid of me. im also not very good at making what is in my head come out making sense on here.

i guess i dont see it as enough process because weve been over there sooo long. i know what we have done is big. im not stupid. i just think things should really be bigger and better over there by now for the amount of time weve been there.

[FScott]

if you are implying that we should have taken out Iran/Syria, then lets be honest here do you REALLY think the US would attack a country that has WMD?

I'm not implying we should have attacked them I'm just saying that we knew for a fact of there ties to terror and WMD when all along the CIA told President Bush there was no evidence in Iraq.

We thought (or were led to beleive) that Iraq had WMDs and we went on and invaded them, unless your saying that the President knew before hand Iraq had no WMD and used it as a means of justification to start a war. Which is what I've been thinking the past year.

[Cal Smith]

im not sure. this is why im in no way critisizing much of what anyone thinks or says on here. im not one who can get into an extreme political arguement and be able to back myself up 100%. i know this and i think that is a key idea for most people. im not trying to run my mouth and say EVERYONE IS WRONG!!! because i know that would be completely stupid of me. im also not very good at making what is in my head come out making sense on here.
i guess i dont see it as enough process because weve been over there sooo long. i know what we have done is big. im not stupid. i just think things should really be bigger and better over there by now for the amount of time weve been there.

I dont understand how you can determine then that there hasnt been enough progress, if you can't recognize what enough would be? That doesnt seem like fair conclusion to make?

[lostntheseethru]

I dont understand how you can determine then that there hasnt been enough progress, if you can't recognize what enough would be? That doesnt seem like fair conclusion to make?


you're missing my whole point. do you have any loved ones over there fighting by any chance?

[justinevans]

you're missing my whole point. do you have any loved ones over there fighting by any chance?

i have friends over there and they volunteered to go.

[lostntheseethru]

i have friends over there and they volunteered to go.


i have many friends and family over there who volunteered to go. my point isnt to say they volunteered or not. i know they want to be over there, its not the point.

the point is you watch their mothers turn white every freaking time the phone rings or someone knocks on the door cuz they are scared to death its someone telling them that their son/daughter is dead. thats a hard thing to watch. then you see them come home and they are not the friend you once knew because they just arent sure how to act anymore....YES they volunteer, and yes i am proud of them and all that they do, but its still not easy.

i talk to a friend i have over there about once a month and everytime i talk to him he seems a little less like the person i know. thats not easy for me to understand or help him deal with. he comes home december 19th and im not really sure how im supposed to be around him. he was this rowdy obnoxious little guy who never was quiet...always had something funny to say regardless of the situation. and now hes just different. thats hard for me.

i guess my point is thats a major reason why i dont think we should still be over there. thats all im getting at.

[splitsecond]

Always remember: the majority of people who post on absolutepunk.net are young and stupid, while the majority of Americans are not.

[lostntheseethru]

Always remember: the majority of people who post on absolutepunk.net are young and stupid, while the majority of Americans are not.


i beg to differ....

[Cal Smith]

i have many friends and family over there who volunteered to go. my point isnt to say they volunteered or not. i know they want to be over there, its not the point.
the point is you watch their mothers turn white every freaking time the phone rings or someone knocks on the door cuz they are scared to death its someone telling them that their son/daughter is dead. thats a hard thing to watch. then you see them come home and they are not the friend you once knew because they just arent sure how to act anymore....YES they volunteer, and yes i am proud of them and all that they do, but its still not easy.
i talk to a friend i have over there about once a month and everytime i talk to him he seems a little less like the person i know. thats not easy for me to understand or help him deal with. he comes home december 19th and im not really sure how im supposed to be around him. he was this rowdy obnoxious little guy who never was quiet...always had something funny to say regardless of the situation. and now hes just different. thats hard for me.
i guess my point is thats a major reason why i dont think we should still be over there. thats all im getting at.

I'm sure that's the case for every war ever

[lostntheseethru]

I'm sure that's the case for every war ever
oh im sure it is too. i just wouldnt know...im too young. well im 24 and was only in 3rd grade during the first gulf war so i dont remember anything. i wasnt trying to limit anything im saying to specifically this war. im sure a lot of what anyone says negatively about this war can be said about any war.

[Kid Kilowatt]

So do you think we're losing the war? If so I'd like to know how you've come to that conclusion.
We cannot win.

[Justin_stacy]

i beg to differ....

ya some aren't that young....

[Justin_stacy]

We cannot win.

Good thing that same weak defeatist attitude didn’t win over in the 40’s…

[Cal Smith]

We cannot win.

Why can we not help set up a stable democratic country in Iraq?

[YouMadeTheScene]

Yeah seriously democrats what are you thinking? You don't like the war? Well Tough Shit!! Be Quiet You God Damned Hippies!! You Want A Report On Iraq? HA! Why Do You Think You Deserve That? What Are You A Congressman Or Something?

Honestly with this war there is no losing the war. This isn't WWII where we are being pushed back from our ground. But are we not doing what we are supposed to and accomplishing our goals? No we aren't at all.

[Justin_stacy]

Yeah seriously democrats what are you thinking? You don't like the war? Well Tough Shit!! Be Quiet You God Damned Hippies!! You Want A Report On Iraq? HA! Why Do You Think You Deserve That? What Are You A Congressman Or Something?

Honestly with this war there is no losing the war. This isn't WWII where we are being pushed back from our ground. But are we not doing what we are supposed to and accomplishing our goals? No we aren't at all.

What ground did the Nazi's push us back from?

[YouMadeTheScene]

What ground did the Nazi's push us back from?

it was just an example of different wars. In WWII it was a lot of basically face to face troop type combat.

[Kid Kilowatt]

Good thing that same weak defeatist attitude didn’t win over in the 40’s…
It isn't a defeatist attitude, it is fact. We cannot quell the violence in Iraq, as there are too many factions looking to obtain power. Our presence is not going to change this. It will simply provide further fodder to those factions.

[Justin_stacy]

It isn't a defeatist attitude, it is fact. We cannot quell the violence in Iraq, as there are too many factions looking to obtain power. Our presence is not going to change this. It will simply provide further fodder to those factions.
Boy I expected better of you........so to start. One, an opinion, which is what your comments are, is not the same as a fact. You can not prove we can not win in Iraq therefore it is an opinion, not a fact. Nor does the evidence lean more towards your defeatist attitude.

Second your example is flawed because you are basing it on one bias view of the events. By totally ignoring the Kurdish north and the Shiite south when developing your conclusion about defeat you are dong nothing but making yourself look ignorant. How can you say we can not win when two of the three areas of Iraq are prospering, starting self control and mostly foreign terror(ism) free? The Sunni triangle is not all of Iraq, nor should the area of saddum’s strongest amount of support be the basis for all views on Iraq….

I hate diving into a history lesson, but victory was not immediate in WWI, WWII or Korea(sort of).....and if we had taken your example back then and backed out just because victory did not come over night, where would we be now?

[YouMadeTheScene]

Boy I expected better of you........so to start. One, an opinion, which is what your comments are, is not the same as a fact. You can not prove we can not win in Iraq therefore it is an opinion, not a fact. Nor does the evidence lean more towards your defeatist attitude.

Second your example is flawed because you are basing it on one bias view of the events. By totally ignoring the Kurdish north and the Shiite south when developing your conclusion about defeat you are dong nothing but making yourself look ignorant. How can you say we can not win when two of the three areas of Iraq are prospering, starting self control and mostly foreign terror(ism) free? The Sunni triangle is not all of Iraq, nor should the area of saddum’s strongest amount of support be the basis for all views on Iraq….

I hate diving into a history lesson, but victory was not immediate in WWI, WWII or Korea(sort of).....and if we had taken your example back then and backed out just because victory did not come over night, where would we be now?


Last time I check the further outside of Baghdad you went the worse the situation is. I mean that is what I have been informed of. And to be completly honest there was never THAT much foreign terrorism in Iraq. It probably had the least amount of terrorism then most Middle Eastern countries.

And I saw you wrote sort of for Korea. There was no 'win' in Korea. We knew that it was a lost cause and left.

[Cal Smith]

Last time I check the further outside of Baghdad you went the worse the situation is. I mean that is what I have been informed of. And to be completly honest there was never THAT much foreign terrorism in Iraq. It probably had the least amount of terrorism then most Middle Eastern countries.

And I saw you wrote sort of for Korea. There was no 'win' in Korea. We knew that it was a lost cause and left.

Better question is.........when's the last time you checked? Like he said Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq are fairly stable and have been for awhile.

Why do you think you don't see larger soldiers death tolls from other coalition soldiers other than the US?

Link 1 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqWhereThingsStand/story?id=448765&page=1)

[YouMadeTheScene]

Better question is.........when's the last time you checked? Like he said Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq are fairly stable and have been for awhile.

Why do you think you don't see larger soldiers death tolls from other coalition soldiers other than the US?

I don't know I checked this maybe a week or so ago I guess. I don't know I could be wrong I've become completly disillusioned by this whole process.

Well there are probably a couple of reasons for that

1) Why would the US Media report the death of a polish soldier?
2) There isn't an overwhelming amount of other coalition soldiers so odds of their deaths behing high is lower.

[YouMadeTheScene]

Better question is.........when's the last time you checked? Like he said Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq are fairly stable and have been for awhile.

Why do you think you don't see larger soldiers death tolls from other coalition soldiers other than the US?

Link 1 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqWhereThingsStand/story?id=448765&page=1)

well cal umm the link is sorta from a year ago...do you have any many more up to date evidence.

Now that I mention it, I am not saying its a credible source but I actually heard about this last night, The Daily Show was saying last nite how that the further away from baghdad the worse things have become.

[yeat182]

Last time I check the further outside of Baghdad you went the worse the situation is. I mean that is what I have been informed of. And to be completly honest there was never THAT much foreign terrorism in Iraq. It probably had the least amount of terrorism then most Middle Eastern countries.

And I saw you wrote sort of for Korea. There was no 'win' in Korea. We knew that it was a lost cause and left.

we haven't left Korea, we are still there, 50 years later.

[yeat182]

it's getting a little ridiculous when people think we need to leave Iraq because we haven't fixed it yet. It took years to "fix" germany and japan and we still have troops there 60 years later. it isn't going to happen over night so to call for our troops to come home is a little far fetched. Should they be rotated so that the ones that have been in combat can come home and fresh troops can head over there, yes, but you can't pull out all the troops, it just isn't going to happen unless we want to totally admit defeat and hand over Iraq, and that isn't something anyone wants to do. If people are going to bitch about bringing our soldiers home, then bitch about bringing them home from Germany, Korea and Japan and everywhere else we they aren't absolutely needed, not from a country that will crumble without them.

[YouMadeTheScene]

it's getting a little ridiculous when people think we need to leave Iraq because we haven't fixed it yet. It took years to "fix" germany and japan and we still have troops there 60 years later. it isn't going to happen over night so to call for our troops to come home is a little far fetched. Should they be rotated so that the ones that have been in combat can come home and fresh troops can head over there, yes, but you can't pull out all the troops, it just isn't going to happen unless we want to totally admit defeat and hand over Iraq, and that isn't something anyone wants to do. If people are going to bitch about bringing our soldiers home, then bitch about bringing them home from Germany, Korea and Japan and everywhere else we they aren't absolutely needed, not from a country that will crumble without them.

How can you make any comparison between Iraq and present day Germany, Japan, and Korea even?

[yeat182]

How can you make any comparison between Iraq and present day Germany, Japan, and Korea even?

no one made that comparison.

[Cal Smith]

well cal umm the link is sorta from a year ago...do you have any many more up to date evidence.

Now that I mention it, I am not saying its a credible source but I actually heard about this last night, The Daily Show was saying last nite how that the further away from baghdad the worse things have become.

ummm that's the point.............the southern area of Iraq has been secure for some time now. The fact that the date is back in January is part of the point.

Also as far as why you don't see higher deaths from british, polish, and other coaltion soldiers is because they have been place in the safer areas of Northern and Southern Iraq.

[YouMadeTheScene]

no one made that comparison.


sorry I read that wrong. But honestly their is a big difference in the fact that the violence in occupying that land have gone on for so long.

[YouMadeTheScene]

ummm that's the point.............the southern area of Iraq has been secure for some time now. The fact that the date is back in January is part of the point.

Also as far as why you don't see higher deaths from british, polish, and other coaltion soldiers is because they have been place in the safer areas of Northern and Southern Iraq.

so what you are saying is that there is no way maybe that north and south iraq couldn't have digressed in their progress? that isn't out of the question?

[yeat182]

sorry I read that wrong. But honestly their is a big difference in the fact that the violence in occupying that land have gone on for so long.

its gone of for what, two years give or take? it was longer in Germany and Japan after WWII, which was my point. It isn't going to stop over night, it takes time.

[YouMadeTheScene]

its gone of for what, two years give or take? it was longer in Germany and Japan after WWII, which was my point. It isn't going to stop over night, it takes time.


It's not the length of time its the violence that is the problem.

[yeat182]

It's not the length of time its the violence that is the problem.

it was violent in Germany and Japan. the difference was the germans and japanese weren't targeting their own citizens.

[Cal Smith]

so what you are saying is that there is no way maybe that north and south iraq couldn't have digressed in their progress? that isn't out of the question?

it's out of the question because it hasnt happend. go look up a new report about it that's dated within the past 5 or 6 months if you like. you'll see........

[Cal Smith]

it was violent in Germany and Japan. the difference was the germans and japanese weren't targeting their own citizens.

no kidding look at east germany in the decades after WW2

[Justin_stacy]

Last time I check the further outside of Baghdad you went the worse the situation is. I mean that is what I have been informed of. And to be completly honest there was never THAT much foreign terrorism in Iraq. It probably had the least amount of terrorism then most Middle Eastern countries..

First I’d check your sources, the further you get out of the Sunni triangle (where Baghdad is) the better it gets.

And your right there was little terrorism in Iraq prior to the war, but that had to do with who controlled it prior to the war, and whom he supported......Fact is foreign terrorism isn't really needed when the government acts as they do....


And I saw you wrote sort of for Korea. There was no 'win' in Korea. We knew that it was a lost cause and left.

You're kind of right. But you must remember that when the war started the soviet back North had pushed the South Korean army and the US/UN armies all the way back to the South China Sea. And if Kilowatt’s example had been followed back then we would have given up there, withdrew, and all of Korea would have been lost to the communists. But we didn’t quit when things got tough and we recaptured all of South Korea, and that is why it was relevant to the original comment.

Also there was a “win,” the primary objective of the US was to liberate South Korea, regain all its territory and stop the further spread of communism (North Korea was already communist prior to the war), and I’m not sure if you’ve looked at a map lately but all three were accomplished. Now the UN mandated objective of taking back the whole peninsula was not successful which is why I said “sort of” won…..

[YouMadeTheScene]

The New York Times > International > Kurds Advancing to Reclaim Land in Northern Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/international/middleeast/20KURD.html?ex=1088308800&en=7148c5143649466a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

Thousands of ethnic Kurds are pushing into lands formerly held by Iraqi Arabs, forcing tens of thousands of them to flee to ramshackle refugee camps and transforming the demographic and political map of northern Iraq.


i found a lot of archvied southern stuff that i can't get access to that i'm going to keep trying

[Kid Kilowatt]

Boy I expected better of you........so to start. One, an opinion, which is what your comments are, is not the same as a fact. You can not prove we can not win in Iraq therefore it is an opinion, not a fact. Nor does the evidence lean more towards your defeatist attitude.

Second your example is flawed because you are basing it on one bias view of the events. By totally ignoring the Kurdish north and the Shiite south when developing your conclusion about defeat you are dong nothing but making yourself look ignorant. How can you say we can not win when two of the three areas of Iraq are prospering, starting self control and mostly foreign terror(ism) free? The Sunni triangle is not all of Iraq, nor should the area of saddum’s strongest amount of support be the basis for all views on Iraq….

I hate diving into a history lesson, but victory was not immediate in WWI, WWII or Korea(sort of).....and if we had taken your example back then and backed out just because victory did not come over night, where would we be now?
The comparison is not applicable. Sorry.

The evidence doesn't support the idea that Iraq will become stable. Military leaders have stated that the insurgency will still be there long after we leave. As for the Iraqi troops they're training to deal with the insurgents, their motives are questionable, at best.

[Cal Smith]

The comparison is not applicable. Sorry.

The evidence doesn't support the idea that Iraq will become stable. Military leaders have stated that the insurgency will still be there long after we leave. As for the Iraqi troops they're training to deal with the insurgents, their motives are questionable, at best.

Please show this "evidence"

[Justin_stacy]

The comparison is not applicable. Sorry..

It is completely applicable........but feel free to explain otherwise in relation to the original topic of cutting and running .


The evidence doesn't support the idea that Iraq will become stable. Military leaders have stated that the insurgency will still be there long after we leave. As for the Iraqi troops they're training to deal with the insurgents, their motives are questionable, at best.

Bullshit.....nowhere is it a dead given one way or the other. Any bit of "evidence" you can show that somehow "proves" this is a no win battle, I can easily counter. So again it is not a fact. Second with two of the three main areas of Iraq becoming more prosperous, more self sufficient, and more security....I think it is more then fair to say the "evidence" doesn't lean towards your direction.

So now troop training doesn’t matter either?

[Cal Smith]

It is completely applicable........but feel free to explain otherwise in relation to the original topic of cutting and running .
Bullshit.....nowhere is it a dead given one way or the other. Any bit of "evidence" you can show that somehow "proves" this is a no win battle, I can easily counter. So again it is not a fact. Second with two of the three main areas of Iraq becoming more prosperous, more self sufficient, and more security....I think it is more then fair to say the "evidence" doesn't lean towards your direction.
So now troop training doesn’t matter either?

Exactly, It'd be crazy to assume either way how it's gonna turn out.

[open mind]

you guys always fail to bring up comparisons to vietnam when talking about iraq, interesting.

[dai the flu]

you guys always fail to bring up comparisons to vietnam when talking about iraq, interesting.
ok cool. you compare the two for us. show us how iraq = vietnam.

[open mind]

well for starters.
both of the countries were/are very divided on where the country should go.
both were/are fought with alot of hit and run type attacks.
both were/are being fought in the name of democracy.
both have a history of having governments set up by foreign governments collapsing.
as in vietnam the overwhelming majority of casualties has been the oppositions, but the fight continues.
both are not very popular wars.
both wars were avoidable and not central to u.s. security when they started.
i can go on if you want.

[yeat182]

well for starters.
both of the countries were/are very divided on where the country should go.
both were/are fought with alot of hit and run type attacks.
both were/are being fought in the name of democracy.
both have a history of having governments set up by foreign governments collapsing.
as in vietnam the overwhelming majority of casualties has been the oppositions, but the fight continues.
both are not very popular wars.
both wars were avoidable and not central to u.s. security when they started.
i can go on if you want.

those are fair comparisons, i think.

[lightcollapse]

very fair

[dai the flu]

1. both of the countries were/are very divided on where the country should go. what country isnt?
2. both were/are fought with alot of hit and run type attacks. your point? its war, it happens.
3. both were/are being fought in the name of democracy. its the united states. what war havent they fought in the name of democracy?
4. both have a history of having governments set up by foreign governments collapsing. umm...what foreign government collapsed in iraq?
5. as in vietnam the overwhelming majority of casualties has been the oppositions, but the fight continues. and thats relevant why?

as a matter of fact, just give me ANY relevant point of comparison.

here, let me save you the trouble of your next post:
1. they used guns in vietnam, now they're using guns in iraq
2. both wars were fought utilizing helicopters
3. neither country liked having their shit blown up

[lightcollapse]

1. both of the countries were/are very divided on where the country should go. what country isnt?
2. both were/are fought with alot of hit and run type attacks. your point? its war, it happens.
3. both were/are being fought in the name of democracy. its the united states. what war havent they fought in the name of democracy?
4. both have a history of having governments set up by foreign governments collapsing. umm...what foreign government collapsed in iraq?
5. as in vietnam the overwhelming majority of casualties has been the oppositions, but the fight continues. and thats relevant why?

as a matter of fact, just give me ANY relevant point of comparison.

here, let me save you the trouble of your next post:
1. they used guns in vietnam, now they're using guns in iraq
2. both wars were fought utilizing helicopters
3. neither country liked having their shit blown up

by in the name of democracy, i think he meant that the purpose of the war was to spread democracy.

[Justin_stacy]

Lets not forget how it’s similar nationally too….

Both Iraq and Vietnam were originally democrat supported wars (and in one case started)
In both cases democrats tried to say that they were "pushed" into the war by the opposing party (even though they started Vietnam)
In both cases democrats had a long history of publicly calling for the war
In both cases when the battle was not easy the democrats “changed” their support
In both cases democrats tried to dissolve any personal accountablity for the war
In both cases democrats tried to sift totally blame to the Republicans (that evil Nixon, instead of that evil LBJ)
In both cases by being “anti-war” they thought they were doing what the nation wanted, but yet gained little or nothing politically
In both cases the democrats took cover behind the extreme wing of their party and pushed through far left individuals in their presidential nomination (McGovern, Kerry, Dean)
Should we go on?

[Justin_stacy]

by in the name of democracy, i think he meant that the purpose of the war was to spread democracy.

or to contain or directly stop the spread of communism......but what ever...

[Louballs]

Always remember: the majority of people who post on absolutepunk.net are young and stupid

Talk about a self-proving statement.

Look, I'm sure it ain't easy to be over in Iraq risking your life, and hearing people back home talk about how you shouldn't be there. Is it bad for morale? Probably. But I've got a major problem with the underlying theme of this thread. If people in this country disagree with our presence in Iraq, then the way that our political system works demands that they voice that opinion. Maybe this hurts morale with the troops, maybe it doesn't. (Incidentally, just because people think it does doesn't make it so.) But the point is that bad things happen when people restrain themselves from expressing their views. What if Bush said "wow, nobody's complaining about how long we've been in Iraq. Maybe I'll invade France next." Once the troops are in France, all these "morale" arguments come right back. It's just another way of making people who disagree with our presence in Iraq seem "unpatriotic." Remember the Red Scare? People were persecuted not only for being Communists, but also for objecting to the government's investigation and interrogation of people during that era. I'm not comparing this to the Red Scare. All I'm saying is that, regardless of what effect on "morale" there might be, our right to speak our minds comes first.

[Cal Smith]

well for starters.
both of the countries were/are very divided on where the country should go.
both were/are fought with alot of hit and run type attacks.
both were/are being fought in the name of democracy.
both have a history of having governments set up by foreign governments collapsing.
as in vietnam the overwhelming majority of casualties has been the oppositions, but the fight continues.
both are not very popular wars.
both wars were avoidable and not central to u.s. security when they started.
i can go on if you want.

take out the two i highlighted and you've also described the US Civil War and to a certain extent the Revolutionary War, what's your point in the comparison though?

[USAFDave]

Keep comparing Iraq and Vietnam all you want, but the only ones you are hurting are the troops. That is such a huge morale killer. I feel a huge personal connection with Vietnam, as it was the first war that USAF Academy (09 our time!) grads fought and died in. These wars are not the same, and you are only hurting my brothers and sisters by saying that. To me, saying that is saying that you are going to give OIF and OEF vets the same treatment Vietnam vets got when they came home.

Dont forget that we have lost about 2000 troops in Iraq in 2 and a half years and there is now a plan for troop reductions underway... we lost 58,000 in Vietnam over the course of the entire war...

[open mind]

1. both of the countries were/are very divided on where the country should go. what country isnt?
2. both were/are fought with alot of hit and run type attacks. your point? its war, it happens.
3. both were/are being fought in the name of democracy. its the united states. what war havent they fought in the name of democracy?
4. both have a history of having governments set up by foreign governments collapsing. umm...what foreign government collapsed in iraq?
5. as in vietnam the overwhelming majority of casualties has been the oppositions, but the fight continues. and thats relevant why?

as a matter of fact, just give me ANY relevant point of comparison.

here, let me save you the trouble of your next post:
1. they used guns in vietnam, now they're using guns in iraq
2. both wars were fought utilizing helicopters
3. neither country liked having their shit blown up
1.yeah every country has division to the same extent of iraq (sarcasm)
2.it's a different type of war, with different tactics, wwII was not fought with hit and run tactics.
3.you miss, iraq is being fought to spread democracy, so was vietnam, you can't say that about every war the u.s. has been in.
4.the government the british set up in iraq collapsed, read some history.
5.it's relevant because it shows massive casualties don't neccessarily deter the enemy.
if you don't think any of this is relevant you are simply a fool, history has a way of repeating itself.

[open mind]

take out the two i highlighted and you've also described the US Civil War and to a certain extent the Revolutionary War, what's your point in the comparison though?
those 2 make a big difference, there are more similarities to.
that vietnam and iraq have more in common then iraq and wwII or korea have in common.

[open mind]

Keep comparing Iraq and Vietnam all you want, but the only ones you are hurting are the troops. That is such a huge morale killer. I feel a huge personal connection with Vietnam, as it was the first war that USAF Academy (09 our time!) grads fought and died in. These wars are not the same, and you are only hurting my brothers and sisters by saying that. To me, saying that is saying that you are going to give OIF and OEF vets the same treatment Vietnam vets got when they came home.

Dont forget that we have lost about 2000 troops in Iraq in 2 and a half years and there is now a plan for troop reductions underway... we lost 58,000 in Vietnam over the course of the entire war...
nobody said they were the same i just pointed out some similarities. how do similarities between one war and the other automattically mean that returning troops get treated the same? that's a pretty big leap in logic.

[Cal Smith]

those 2 make a big difference, there are more similarities to.
that vietnam and iraq have more in common then iraq and wwII or korea have in common.

I'm just pointing out of those things you listed you could have been talking about the civil or revolutionary war, so it wasnt that helpful comparing it to the vietname war.

[Saves The Night]

Well hey lets all just not think what we want to think for ourselves and go with what the government wants us to think just so they can feel better about themselves. Give me a break already, I'm gonna think and say what I want and if thats going to choose how you react over in Iraq thats your own fucking fault.

[Cal Smith]

Talk about a self-proving statement.

Look, I'm sure it ain't easy to be over in Iraq risking your life, and hearing people back home talk about how you shouldn't be there. Is it bad for morale? Probably. But I've got a major problem with the underlying theme of this thread. If people in this country disagree with our presence in Iraq, then the way that our political system works demands that they voice that opinion. Maybe this hurts morale with the troops, maybe it doesn't. (Incidentally, just because people think it does doesn't make it so.) But the point is that bad things happen when people restrain themselves from expressing their views. What if Bush said "wow, nobody's complaining about how long we've been in Iraq. Maybe I'll invade France next." Once the troops are in France, all these "morale" arguments come right back. It's just another way of making people who disagree with our presence in Iraq seem "unpatriotic." Remember the Red Scare? People were persecuted not only for being Communists, but also for objecting to the government's investigation and interrogation of people during that era. I'm not comparing this to the Red Scare. All I'm saying is that, regardless of what effect on "morale" there might be, our right to speak our minds comes first.

That's why there is a difference between disagreeing with the war but striving for an end resolution and vicory, and disagreeeing with the war and place your bet in failure.

Some of the democratic congressman has done the latter. They've admitted defeat before the war has ended and do not believe the US policy or troops can accomplish their mission. They've staked their political future in US failure.

On the other hand, you can be a senator that smashes the war policies day in and day out, but still see a resolution in sight. You don't have to call a defeat this early and you can go out supporting the troops.

There's a strong difference in the two stances.

[USAFDave]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123013288