lies.com/images/first_four_years.gif
[quote=“mofangongren”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]I personally think Pres. Bush and his team are doing a lousy job … [/quote]At least this part of your words the majority of Americans can agree with! But with Republicans like Chuck Hagel talking about losing the war, seems like there’s a real problem. Perhaps the White House will arrange to have Sen. Hagel ejected from public, taxpayer-funded events just like they do to “common” American citizens. Despite the clear priority that the American people have on fighting against islamic terrorists, Bush has chosen to fight four very separate wars:
- a military invasion against the secular, broken-down, tin-pot dictatorship of the already-marginalized Saddam Hussein;
- a “culture” war against anyone the religious right doesn’t like;
- a civil-rights war against American citizens; and
- an economic war against the middle class.[/quote]
mofa -
PLEASE DO NOT EDIT AND MIS-REPRESENT MY POSTS TO FIT YOUR AGENDA.
Let’s take a look at what the majority of Americans now think about this big stinker of a war, shall we:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html
[quote]For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting – in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061000191.html has the results of the AP/IPSOS poll on Bush, with the May results in parentheses:
[quote]1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?
_Right direction, 35 percent (36)
_Wrong track, 59 percent (59)
_Not sure, 6 percent (5)
- Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
_Approve, 43 percent (47)
_Disapprove, 55 percent (51)
_Mixed feelings, 1 percent (1)
_Not sure, 1 percent (2)
- When it comes to handling foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 45 percent (49)
_Disapprove, 52 percent (48)
_Mixed feelings, 1 percent (2)
_Not sure, 1 percent (1)
- When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 41 percent (43)
_Disapprove, 56 percent (55)
_Mixed feelings, 2 percent (2)
_Not sure, 1 percent ( )[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061000187.html
[quote]Car bombings and attacks by insurgents killed 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis last month and Pentagon officials acknowledge the level of violence is about the same as a year ago, when they were forced to scrap a plan to substantially reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
While Bush has gotten generally low scores for his handling of domestic issues for many months, most Americans have been supportive of his foreign policy. Not any more.
The poll conducted for AP by Ipsos found 45 percent support Bush’s foreign policy, down from 52 percent in March.
Bush’s popularity reached its zenith shortly after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when various polls found nearly 90 percent approved of the job he was doing. It was close to 80 percent when Ipsos started tracking attitudes about Bush at the start of 2002, and was just over 50 percent when the AP-Ipsos poll was started in December 2003.[/quote]
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=571
[quote]The main results and trends in this poll are:
President Bush’s 61 to 37 percent negative rating on the handling of Iraq is a decline from the 56 to 42 percent negative rating in March. By way of comparison, two years ago the president had a 63 to 36 positive rating.
By 54 to 26 percent, American adults are not confident that U.S. policies in Iraq will be successful. This represents an increase from March when a 49 to 30 percent plurality said that they were not confident.
The number of adults who say that taking military action against Iraq was the right thing to do has declined to 39 percent from 41 percent in March. In addition the number who thinks that this was the wrong thing to do has increased to its highest level – 48 percent vs. 45 percent in March.
While 39 percent of adults feel that the situation for U.S. troops is getting worse, only 21 percent feel that things are getting better. A third (34%) feels that things haven’t changed. This is essentially the same as March results.[/quote]
The problem for the Bush administration is not that the U.S. citizens don’t have enough information about our invasion of Iraq. If the American citizens had more information, they’d probably dislike the war more intently. Might push up the numbers of Americans who feel ripped off by quite a bit:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970
[quote]Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.
“This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003,” the pollsters observed. “At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004.”[/quote]
How about that? A full half of American already are openly willing to state their President lied to them about one of the most important decisions a president in office can possibly make.
Um news flash to MFGR:
Even before the Iraq war, it was 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent split. I think that has continued though Bush’s share of the vote increased to 51.5 percent. The nation is equally divided. That is news to you after five years?
Therefore, I am not shocked or amazed that fully half the American people do not approve of Bush or his policies.
[quote=“Shenme Niao”]http://www.lies.com/images/first_four_years.gif
[/quote]
don’t think that is a valid comparison
The number of troops in Vietnam from 1961 onwards increased. Certainly in 1961 and even in 1964 there was no way the number of troops in Vietnam as what the US has in Iraq now
[quote=“fred smith”]Um news flash to MFGR:
Even before the Iraq war, it was 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent split. I think that has continued though Bush’s share of the vote increased to 51.5 percent. The nation is equally divided. That is news to you after five years?
Therefore, I am not shocked or amazed that fully half the American people do not approve of Bush or his policies.[/quote]
Um, newsflash to fred smith:
There are numerous schools that might be able to help you with your grasp of statistics. A change from 62% in late 2003 to 52% 3 months ago to 47% now is a bit different from what you’ve indicated.
Considering that the Iraq war has been going on for about 2 years and 3 months at this point, I am also curious about your grasp of dates, numbers and current events. What was that you were trying to say about there being a 50.5% vs. 49.5% split that has continued for “5 years”?
[quote=“TNT”]
don’t think that is a valid comparison
The number of troops in Vietnam from 1961 onwards increased. Certainly in 1961 and even in 1964 there was no way the number of troops in Vietnam as what the US has in Iraq now[/quote]
According to heritage.org, “Troop levels in Vietnam proper accelerated sharply in 1962, peaked in 1968 at over 500,000 servicemen, and then declined sharply every year after, ending with complete pullout in 1975.”
Certainly many useful conclusions can be drawn from the graph.
If you want to slide it over, here is the big picture…
Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.
The White House is completely disconnected from reality.
It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along.
The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.
I’m just wondering what Rove is going to do to Sen. Chuck Hagel now that Hagel says we’re losing the war. The GOP is not too nice to anybody who doesn’t stand by the president. Of course, looking at what they did to McCain in 2000, it is quite possible that they can’t do anything more to McCain for his recent statements.
The Republicans are starting to feed off themselves, and you can see the frustration building within this IP forum among those who so desperately wanted to see the neocon dreams played out.
20 years from now, Bush is going to be nothing more than the punchline for late-night comedy hosts. Hell, he already is one now. Here’s a Letterman top-10 list from this month:
[quote]Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain His Popularity
-
Dip into social security fund to give every American free HBO
-
Use diplomacy to bring peace to Brad, Jen and Angelina
-
Try fixing Iraq, creating some jobs, reducing the deficit and maybe capturing Osama
-
Figure out a way for the Yankees to win a game
-
Replace his “country simpleton” persona with more lovable “hillbilly idiot” image
-
Use weekly radio address to give Americans a Van Halen twofer
-
Get Saddam to switch to boxers
-
Ditch the librarian and make Eva Longoria First Lady
-
Resign
-
Jump on Oprah’s couch while professing his love for Katie Holmes[/quote]
[quote=“Shenme Niao”]Certainly many useful conclusions can be drawn from the graph.
If you want to slide it over, here is the big picture…
Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.
The White House is completely disconnected from reality.
It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along.
The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.[/quote]
Could you explain how, based on the above graph, you can conclude that we are “losing” in Iraq?
Also, if the number of deaths/casualties inflicted on enemy combatants is a measure of how well or poorly one side is doing in a war… how would you characterize the performance of the terrorists-insurgents? Are they winning or losing? Or, do you figure this is a lose-lose situation?
Newsflash to MFGR:
hahha this is fun. NEWSFLASH!!!
President Bush’s support (as quoted by me) represents election percentages. I find it AMAZING that the support for the Iraq effort closely mirrors that! Oh dear. 50.5 percent to 47.5 percent. That means that 3 percent of Bush supporters do not support the war in Iraq or perhaps it is even greater but then some Democrats do? Yikes that 3 percent variable has me pacing the floor.
Tigerman:
VEry interesting graph and one that shows the US was in fact in pretty good shape after TET but that we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by losing the political will to maintain our presence. NOW that is a lesson worth learning.
How about it MFGR? Ready to learn a lesson? haha
If the U.S. presence in Iraq even starts to slightly resemble the U.S. experience in Vietnam, that’s one heck of a price to pay for a presidential administration’s incompetence.
Figuring that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, OBL or the militant loonies who want to hurt the U.S., this war has been an enormous screwup. With neocon chumps beating their chests about going into Syria and Iran, we’re just going to spread our troops a lot thinner with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military institutions are taking a huge whupping. Articles have already been posted about officers seeking to get out as soon as possible (interesting example of academy classmates seeing each other at a job fair), soldiers looking to find loopholes, and most reprehensibly there are those who are running off to Canada to evade their duty.
But what is the “duty” of a soldier?
[quote]“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)[/quote]
These guys are supposed to support and defend our Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere are they promising to launch invasions of oil-rich countries. Nowhere are they swearing to help subvert the Constitution and overall efforts against terrorism by torturing indefinite detainees to get false confessions or personal satisfaction. Nowhere are they supposed to give their lives in a desert wasteland so that Halliburton can make a buck off of feeding and supplying them.
No wonder the generals have been expressing their concerns about the state of the military for months now. No wonder experienced soldiers want out and recruiters have to scrape the barrels to find new soldiers. No wonder the academy grads (people who planned to spend their lives in uniform), are now freshly considering what their engineering degrees might do for them in the private sector.
So this is what now passes for your version of proof MFGR that the troops no longer support Bush? Got any facts to back that up? Even you admitted that more than 70 percent of the officers in the armed forces voted for Bush in 2004 so what gives now? A big sea change in attitude? I don’t think so.
During WW2, US military casualties increased each year of the war, with the highest number of US casualties incurred at the end of the war.
Were we losing WW2 all the time, or were we losing WW2 just before the Germans and Japanese decided to surrender unconditionally?
I’m struggling to understand the relationship between the number of casualties incurred in Iraq and the issue of whether we are winning or losing there.
mofangongren, can you explain this relationship to me?
You making up some more statistics with no basis again? Let’s see some real stats, there.
To whome is this addressed?
:s
Tigerman, World War II was over when we got into Berlin. Of course as our deck-prancing, costumed president found while partying under a “Mission Accomplished” banner, the war was just getting started. If you had any experience with studying history or differentiating factual situations, then you would be able to see the obvious differences between the Iraq war and World War II.
Please try to answer my question. Doing so facilitates conversation. Dodging questions furthers nothing.
Now, as I indicated above, US forces suffered increasingly more casualties in each year of WW2 and most casualties were incurred just prior to the time that the Germans and Japanese surrendered to us unconditionally.
Now, you guys are arguing that we are losing in Iraq and to support this claim, you guys keep citing statistics that illustrate increasing numbers of US casualties in Iraq.
So… I just want to know how increasing numbers of casualties evidences a losing performance. As anyone who has any idea about war or fighting knows, greater casualties are incurred when you engage the enemy than are when you refuse to engage the enemy.
As the statistics re casualties in WW2 illustrate, an increasing rate of casualties does NOT necessarily indicate a losing performance. I think that even you would agree that it would be silly to conclude that the US and allies were losing just prior to the time that the Germans and Japanese surrendered unconditionally… right?
Thus, if you agree that an increase in casualties incurred does not necessarily indicate a losing performance, then I would greatly appreciate your explaining why increased US casualties in Iraq indicate that we are losing there.
I think my question is both simple and fair. Can you respond in a simple and fair manner?
So you still can’t see the difference between World War II and the Iraq war? I guess you never will. 
First of all Tigerman:
I would like to say that I agree that you always dress well and are highly fashionable. I did not know, however, that you liked chocolate and sleeping. Might I suggest that you refrain from doing both activities at the same time.
Second, I believe MFGR is disputing my 70 percent claim. If so, head back to the thread on Troops Don’t Support Bush and read it yourself.
Third, we remained in Germany a full 60 years after World War II and are there today. Perhaps, saving Germany was a mistake but it’s too late to cry over that now. I will perhaps rephrase my views after Angela Merkel wins but until then… haha
Fourth, I also think it remains interesting that we lost the Vietnam War despite having such low death rates. Really from Tet in 1968 to 1972 when we really disengaged the numbers were falling. We had won. What we lost was the political will to remain there. I think that this set of statistics and the graph that were provided actually buttress our views far better than those ascribing to MFGR’s views.
Fifth, NEWSFLASH. Sorry just wanted to use it to show off my knowledge of a second language MFGRese.
So, I guess you cannot answer the question.
Checkmate. 
… Game over… That’s all she wrote… Buy Sam a drink and get his dog one too… Elvis has just left the building… Well, scratch my back with a hacksaw… Call Arnold Slick from Turtle Crick!!
Damn! How’s them for MFGRisms? 