Moderators lazarus Posted January 2, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 2, 2007 The Country, the politicians and now the troops have lost faith in Bush's handling of the war. What kind of people still have confidence in Bush's war stratergy. http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory. For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll. When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent. Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I guess only those of us that actually supported the war should respond in this thread, huh? Well, I was glad to see Rumsfield go. I am hoping this new guy can turn things around. We will see. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2007 Interesting that Bush seems to have been pushing for a 'surge' of more troops into Iraq and Robert Gates seems to have been pushing back. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2007 Now that we are there, we have to stick it out and win it. The consequences of not winning it are unacceptable. If we leave too soon--before Iraq is able to stand on its own and defend itself against the Muslim extremists, against Syria and Iran-- that whole area will be like one huge powder keg, and no one will trust the United States again. That is exactly what the far left wants. They want to see the US lose and in a big way. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Nan Posted January 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2007 I guess a lot of people do not believe this war is winnable. Military intervention is not going to solve the age old distrusts and violence that can mark the interaction of the various groups involved. Saddam tried to enforce control with brutality. The cost to the Iraqi people of this war is huge. They had no say in approving the regime of Saddam and company, nor in the arrival of the foreign troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Ouch... (a) The consequences of not winning it are unacceptable ( A lot of people do not believe this war is winnable Conclusion: The outcome is going to be unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted January 3, 2007 Author Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2007 Now that we are there, we have to stick it out and win it. The consequences of not winning it are unacceptable. If we leave too soon--before Iraq is able to stand on its own and defend itself against the Muslim extremists, against Syria and Iran-- that whole area will be like one huge powder keg, and no one will trust the United States again. That is exactly what the far left wants. They want to see the US lose and in a big way. My question is really about stratergy. What is the best way to win? I'm not sure if there is going to be a winner in the ordinary sense of the term. There was no winner in the reshaping of the Balkan region. There was a return to stability. America cannot win but I think there can be a return to stability but the question is how? Will a surge of 30,000 troops do it? Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Jeannieb43 Posted January 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2007 I ask this question because I don't actually remember it myself... Many people have been eulogizing President Gerald Ford the past several days. I agree he was a fine person of good character and no self-aggrandizing ambitions. But at that time I thought all presidents were good men [with the sole exception of Nixon's Watergate escapade]. Now, however, recalling President Ford just serves to magnify the mess in which we now find our country. But my question is: How did President Ford accomplish the daunting task of getting the U.S. out of VietNam? Did we simply pull out all our troops? Did we anoint a new government in South VietNam and "teach" them how to run a countrry? What actually happened then? I was too busy raising babies about that time, I guess. I didn't stay in touch with world affairs. So please enlighten me, somebody. Quote Jeannie<br /><br /><br />...Change is inevitable; growth is optional.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2007 Quote: That is exactly what the far left wants. They want to see the US lose and in a big way. Hmm, and your evidence for this statement is? The canard 'the left hates America' is just that. The left hates some of the things America does in the world, and wants it to do better. The left knew this war was an unwinnable mess from its inception, and I guess there's a certain amount of appeal in finally seeing everyone else realise something you've known for years, but I imagine there are very few indeed, if any, who want to see America 'lose' in this situation. What they want to see is some peace and stability for the people of Iraq, whose country was illegally invaded. I'll be back later with a suggestion on strategy. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Quote: How did President Ford accomplish the daunting task of getting the U.S. out of VietNam? Congress cut off funding for the war. No more money, troops had to come home. Most of our military equipment was destroyed and left behind - no money to bring it home. Many helicopters brought men to ships and were pushed off into the sea. I am not aware of any other war that ended so aburptly. So don't buy the lie that Bush sent our boys into battle. Congress has the power to stop the war the same way they stopped Viernam. Cut off the funding. Quote: Did we anoint a new government in South VietNam and "teach" them how to run a countrry? We tried to set up a government that would fight the communists. It didn't work for various reasons. The big difference is that the Vietcong only wanted control of Vietnaum. When we went home they stayed there. If we pull out of Iraq and the terrorists take control of the country, they will use its oil wealth to fund even more terrorist attacks against us. Returning the area to stability would be victory. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Regarding : "The left knew this war was an unwinnable mess from its inception" Since the LEFT were the ones that supported and authorized the war ... How come they voted for the war if they felt it was unwinnable ??? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted January 4, 2007 Members Share Posted January 4, 2007 Nixon was the one that brought the troops home. But like shane said they just stop the funding. So bascially we just pulled out of Vietnam. We did not appoint a new government, the communist took over and didn't need us teaching them what to do. The Watergate fiasco happen after. pkrause Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2007 Quote: Regarding : "The left knew this war was an unwinnable mess from its inception" Since the LEFT were the ones that supported and authorized the war ... How come they voted for the war if they felt it was unwinnable ??? Democrats in Congress aren't 'the left'... they're not even really on the left, more in the centre. And even they only voted to authorise the use of force, not for a direct declaration of war. And they voted that way because they're cowards and looking 'tough' is imporant to be electable in the US. There were loud, clear voices all along that (a) said the rationale for the war was fundamentally flawed, the WMD were not there and there was no Saddam/9/11 link and ( rejected the 'greeted with flowers' fantasy and said very clearly that the country would end up as a quagmire. I know because I was one of them. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I think it important to bare in mind that with the exception of the Sunni triangle, our soldiers were pretty much "greeted with flowers". Many of the soldiers that have served over there tell many heart-warming stories. The local press is very anti-America. America has not shut down the press over there. The muslim press helps the insurgency recruit and creates greater anti-American feelings among the populous. I think just as the Bush Administration has failed miserably here at defending his policies, they have failed in the propaganda war in Iraq. The anti-American muslims have turned much of the "greeted with flowers" attitude the people had into a go-home-yankee attitude. I don't think anyone felt sure Saddam didn't have WMDs. Even France said they would support the action IF WMDs were discovered. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Nan Posted January 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2007 Nixon was the one that brought the troops home. But like shane said they just stop the funding. So bascially we just pulled out of Vietnam. We did not appoint a new government, the communist took over and didn't need us teaching them what to do. The Watergate fiasco happen after. pkrause Watergate was 1974 wasn't it - the Vietnam war ended 1975 That is just off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Seems I got a couple points mixed up. The last American troops left Vietnam in 1973 after a treaty was signed that earned Henry Kissinger the Noble Peace Prize. The South Vietnamese government which had been established was able to survive until 1975 when the Democrat-controlled Congress cut off their funding which made the peace terms of the treaty unenforcable. The North Vietnamese were fully funded by Russia so without US funding the South didn't stand a chance. So Nixon did bring the troops home with the treaty that won Kissinger his Nobel prize. Then Watergate happened. Then the Democrats cut off funding, Saigon fell and Ford declared the war was over. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Point of interest: Democrats are not in a position today to cut off funding for Iraq because they would need to have enough votes to override a presidencial veto and they barely have a majority. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Regarding : "the WMD were not there and there was no Saddam/9/11 link " ........................................................... ALL of the above is untrue and has been addressed previously but I will repeat. Hundreds of missles and tons of Mustard Gas were found in Iraq as Shane has so graciously documented. As I indicated .... my nephew was in the Marines that lead the charge on the Terrorist training camps in Iraq that the 9-11 terrorists were trained in. NOW tell me ... are those links or are they not.??? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lazarus Posted January 4, 2007 Author Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2007 Excuse me.....what about a stratergy for bringing security to Iraq. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 There are two issues at play. 1) Was the war justified? 2) Is the war going well? My opinon is 1) yes 2) No. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Good Ideas do not always work. A lot of good ideas will not work in Iraq. We have two choices ... we can give up and be critical of our president of even trying. OR we can rally behind the president and try to help him come up with ideas that might work. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sorry Laz, I was looking for a blog post I saw yesterday that compared the situation in Iraq with the Northern Ireland situation. It was only when the British Government was ready to sit down with Sinn Fein and take their views seriously and find a good compromise that didn't leave anyone absolutely happy but was workable for everyone that peace in Northern Ireland became possible. The post made the point that that's what would be required to bring peace to Iraq... and that talk of 'winning' is unhelpful in that context because it requires losers. There certainly seems to be no will to negotiate so far, but that's a strategy for peace and stability in Iraq (the post said it better than I have but I can't find it). Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2007 ..and the alternatives *definitely* are not limited to those two, Redwood. Here's a rundown of a few possibilities... and this list doesn't even include what I suggested above: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/04/iraq_plans/ Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sorry Laz, I was looking for a blog post I saw yesterday that compared the situation in Iraq with the Northern Ireland situation. It was only when the British Government was ready to sit down with Sinn Fein and take their views seriously and find a good compromise that didn't leave anyone absolutely happy but was workable for everyone that peace in Northern Ireland became possible. The post made the point that that's what would be required to bring peace to Iraq... and that talk of 'winning' is unhelpful in that context because it requires losers. There certainly seems to be no will to negotiate so far, but that's a strategy for peace and stability in Iraq (the post said it better than I have but I can't find it). Sounds Good Bravus ... Having served as a pastor in Eire and lived in both the North and South of Ireland ... I know the impact of war. And I agree with the need to sit down with all concerned. Do you think this would work with Iraq? Who would you sit down with? There are so many factions in Iraq that hate each other. Not sure what would happen. Mostly we are giving security to the current government. But it is opposed by many. In Northern Ireland ... You had Sinn Fein and the Loyalists. That was FAR LESS complicated issue in my mind. And yet most believed that Northern Ireland was an impossible situation. And look how long it took. Most Americans are not that patient. REDWOOD Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 According to the President ...Winning means finding PEACE and Stability for Iraq. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.