The reason Bush will lose

U.S. military deaths in Iraq reach 900 July 21, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb exploded north of Baghdad early Wednesday, killing one U.S. 1st Infantry Division soldier and bringing to 900 the number of U.S. military forces killed since the beginning of military operations in March 2003.

msnbc.msn.com/id/5455104/

Forget everything else. The reason Bush will never be elected to another term is that everyday more and more people, especially Americans, are dying on the streets of Iraq.

Despite the belief of people like fred smith and some other misguided forumosans who feel that Iraq has been a great victory, the truth is that the daily death toll mounts and there seems to be no relief in sight.

Bush and his camp have the blood of many innocent people on their hands. The invasion of Iraq should never have happened and the world is not safer from terrorism simply because Hussein has lost his power. I can’t wait until November when Bush loses the election.

Beside the death toll they should pay a bit more attention to those US soldiers that were injured, who’s numbers amounts into the thousands by now:

U.S. deaths in Iraq reach 900; injured near 6,000

[quote=“cableguy”]Forget everything else. The reason Bush will never be elected to another term is that everyday more and more people, especially Americans, are dying on the streets of Iraq.

Despite the belief of people like fred smith and some other misguided forumosans who feel that Iraq has been a great victory, the truth is that the daily death toll mounts and there seems to be no relief in sight.[/quote]

You have absolutely no perspective.

[quote]About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success — and indeed it was, as Anglo-American forces cleared much of France of its Nazi occupiers in less than three months. But the outcome was not at all preordained, and more often was the stuff of great tragedy. [color=red]Blunders were daily occurrences — resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq[/color].

[/quote]

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”][quote=“cableguy”]Forget everything else. The reason Bush will never be elected to another term is that everyday more and more people, especially Americans, are dying on the streets of Iraq.

Despite the belief of people like fred smith and some other misguided forumosans who feel that Iraq has been a great victory, the truth is that the daily death toll mounts and there seems to be no relief in sight.[/quote]

You have absolutely no perspective.

[quote]About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success

comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is sooo weak.

weak sauce.

Not really fair TM. Wars are fought differently today and the US has the best weapons. If we were fighting a low tech war (like the insurgents have to) the rate of casualities would be so much higher. We can drop precision bombs into areas that would cause dozens or hundreds of casualites if we had to go in there with troops.

Also, your D-day analogy is skewed as you are talking about all Allied troops. If we were to tally Iraqis (allies) killed in the figure it would be much higher. Still not as high as previous wars but then, as I said, they didn’t have precision bombs and kevlar.

But the biggest debacle in this war and the reason I would never vote for Bush if I could, is that even if by some miracle the situation stabalizes and good government develops, the US will get no credit for it. The muslim world won’t give you credit, and nor will western allies. It won’t make future wars against rogue regimes easier, in fact this war has made it all but impossible to engage in a pre-emptive war in the future. Because of Bush you are now going to have to wait for the smoking gun, the nuclear blast.

Rightly or wrongly the US is now seen as a warmonger, as endorsing torture, as having incompetent intelligence agencies, and a limited armed forces. The greatest power in the world can’t secure peace and security. The greatest power can’t maintain electrical services. And so on.

Bush has so alienated even those of us who supported the war he has likely emboldened the enemy. Not only have they gained supporters, outraged by the invasion of Iraq, but they surely must be pleased to see the US so divided. What will be the result of another major attack on US soil? More aggression or capitualtion, a la Spain?

So what has been gained for the cost of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives? One step forward in the war on terror and two back. You defeated the tyrant and the people still turned against you. That is not success. It’s a pyrrhic victory. You don’t usually reward leaders for those kinds of gains.

bush will win just watch

then taiwan will be independent

It’s pointless to compare the Normandy beach landings with the Iraq war. The Allies were able to accept horrific losses because they were fighting a war they believed in, and which in the case of England was obviously self-defense. The American involvement in Iraq, and formerly in Vietnam, regardless of whether you think the cause is just, does not have the same kind of urgency for the American population. Therefore, any casualties weaken support for the war.
Personally, I think Bush is going to lose because Kerry has more money.

In World War II, the world was under an actual threat from a Nazi Germany that had brute strength (unifying ground and air strength in the Blitzkrieg), the best generals (Rommel, etc.), and technological superiority (jet planes, rockets, etc.). Frankly, the only thing that saved us was that Hitler was the biggest know-it-all jackass in the world. And while he might have surprised people the Poles, the French, and nearly even the USSR, ultimately it was his pigheaded reliance on “intuition” that led to his ultimate defeat. We were quite lucky he wasn’t smarter, sneakier and more calculating. The Brits had something to fear. The Soviet Union had something to fear. Had the U.S. found itself cut off and alone, it might have had something to fear.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein might have been kinda sneaky, but certainly not in a really smart sort of way. Most of his tricks involved his personal survival, not some sense of “destiny” in which Iraq ruled all. His might? We did away with that in Gulf War I. His generals? His army was more aimed at keeping down the Shi’ites than it was, truly, for professional skill – and nobody is going to argue that the Iran-Iraq war produced any battles the genius of which shall be taught for coming decades at West Point. Technology? Tanks that were, by and large, designed decades ago and bought off the Soviet Union. Frankly, the guy was not a threat, was never really a threat, was unlikely to become a threat.

Saddam was a bad guy with a mustache. Comparisons to Hitler and the circumstances of World War II can otherwise go into the trash. Bush will lose because he wasted thousands of dead and grievously wounded American soldiers on the wrong battlefield, threw billions of dollars into a misguided effort to benefit Halliburton buddies, and can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the weather.

I am not convinced that Iraq is sooo bad for Bush. All the bad news recently has not hurt his poll figures much, has it?

The reason being that Kerry is not as credible on the terror issue. If Kerry can change people’s minds at the convention this thursday, then maybe the Iraq situation will start to affect Bush badly. But, really, if it stays on the headlines, it just reminds people that he is a “war president.”

Very close this election - my suspicion has all along been that Bush might just, just squeak in again. But Kerry is starting to build some momentum and look like a more serious campaigner after the primaries.

If Bush loses, I think it will be because people believe the danger is passed and its time to rebuild ties with France! Much as that will have FS spitting blood.

And how did they get to be like that?

Was it appeasement or was it Chamberlain with his “peace in our time”?

Hitler only readied Germany for war cause the rest of the world left him do this
When he built up his army… occupied the Ruhr… the world did nothing but talk to him in the hope that that would satisy his lust for power and control

TNT: How did the Germans get to be like that? Well, regarding brute strength Germany had been one of the major world industrialized powers – the Ruhr Valley was basically an enormous iron foundry/steel plant. Regarding generals, the Germans had a very strongly professional officer corps that, at its senior levels, more or less survived in place between the world wars. Regarding technological superiority, that went hand-in-hand along with the industrialization.

Now, Hitler may have had some lust for power and control, but Saddam Hussein’s lust was more for personal survival. During recent interrogations, there are some indications that Saddam’s pathetic external military adventures were largely to give his troops something to keep them occupied that would, more or less, preclude their offing him. Even the official Iraqi reasons for their wars (Iran-Iraq, the Kuwait invasion) were about oil – not some sweeping sense that an Iraqi destiny meant that Baathist might should rule the Arab world. Perhaps learning something from Chamberlain and appeasement, the UN embarked on a 12-year flawed effort at containment that, by and large, apparently ended up getting rid of the WMDs anyways.

Getting back on point, Bush will lose because he’s traded American blood for his cronies’ well being. Americans are already catching on that he sold out the interest of the nation for his special interests. That, and because the buck never stops anywhere in his administration – he consistently tolerates incompetence and encourages mediocrity in a way that most Americans are finding abhorrent.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
I am not convinced that Iraq is sooo bad for Bush. All the bad news recently has not hurt his poll figures much, has it?[/quote]
Incumbants with such a low position in the polls this close to an election have never won reelection. I read it a couple months back. Look it up for yourself if you need proof.

As Clinton said last night at the convention (GREAT SPEECH, btw, for those who missed it. Brokaw called him Elvis!),

“Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.”

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Very close this election - my suspicion has all along been that Bush might just, just squeak in again. [/quote]
Good suspicion. Black box voting will have a lot to do with an upset such as that.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
If Bush loses, I think it will be because people believe the danger is passed and its time to rebuild ties with France! Much as that will have FS spitting blood.[/quote]
Well, yeah, that, and the economy is in shambles, the deficit is out of control, the rich are getting richer (especially the war mongering environment abusing pigs like Bush and his crew), they’re getting tax breaks while average americans are getting medicaid cuts, Americans are the most divided they’ve been for many decades, education policies and healthcare HAVE been left behind, young men and women are dying and being injured in droves in Iraq–for what?
No way is chimp getting another crack at the sack of nuts that is the White House. The one-term Bush reich is drawing to dramatic and long awaited close.
Hey Fred. When that happens you can bash Kerry for four years. Maybe he’ll be a slut like Clinton and fool around with fat chicks in blue dresses. Maybe we can blame his infidelity on his big mouthed wife who told some reporter idjit to ‘shove it’ yesterday. Good stuff. That woman has a mouth on her!
Maybe you’ll get to blame him for a series of fresh attacks on the “homeland” if you’re lucky. A disaster as such would make dumb ass Republicans say stupid shit like 'See? WE were the ONLY ONES capable of protecting the homeland, and now look what’s happened! Where’s Rummy when we need him? Where’s Ashcroft to sing us a jingoistic ditty? But most of all, where is that good, upstanding fine young alkie moron son of a rich man?

Let’s see the economy is in a shambles? 4.5 to 4.75 percent growth predicted for this year. Unemployment down to 5.6 percent compared with Europe it’s like magical and then there is that deficit which is drop drop dropping from US$550 billion to US$331 billion and in June there actually was a surplus and then of course we lost 903 troops in a year and a half (nearly) of war and occupation while we lost 3,000 when we were not fighting in one day and I guess you have made your point as usual Alien, poorly. Better read up on the latest econ and financial stats. We could cut the deficit even more by getting rid of the depts of housing and urban development and dept of education and labor and commerce. I would be willing to axe them all. Is that what I hear you saying Alien. You support this too?

Will Kerry win. Might, but since he is richer than Bush and uses tax havens to save his wealth and not pay taxes that makes him better how exactly? A real man of the people. One law for them and one for me. Sounds good. Could Kerry win? maybe. I would prefer he did not but will that change things in Iraq? Not really. That little puppy is in the bag. Saddam is gone and ain’t coming back and we have taken the fight to where it needs to be. Off our streets and into theirs. Now, there is the kind of dialogue going on that is and has been much needed for quite some time and how exactly is this bad?

[quote=“mofangongren”]In World War II, the world was under an actual threat from a Nazi Germany that had brute strength (unifying ground and air strength in the Blitzkrieg), the best generals (Rommel, etc.), and technological superiority (jet planes, rockets, etc.). Frankly, the only thing that saved us was that Hitler was the biggest know-it-all jackass in the world. And while he might have surprised people the Poles, the French, and nearly even the USSR, ultimately it was his pigheaded reliance on “intuition” that led to his ultimate defeat. We were quite lucky he wasn’t smarter, sneakier and more calculating. The Brits had something to fear. The Soviet Union had something to fear. Had the U.S. found itself cut off and alone, it might have had something to fear.
[/quote]

Sorry for sounding so anal but… :blush:

Rommel was only about 9th on the Order of Merit list.

German technical superiorty was a myth, the T-34 outgunned and outclassed any German armour at the beginning of the German invasion of Russia. The problem the Russians had was they didn’t know how to use them and the Stalinist purges of the armed forces weeded out many of the brightest minds. The jets and V-1,V-2 rockets came into play too late in the war to have much of an impact. We can save communications and support logistics for a later time. :wink:

Of course the German invasion of the Balkans set the Russian invasion schedule back. I believe that Army Group Centre was in sight of Moscow or with striking distance when the first snows started to fall. The Balkan invasion also increased track wear on German armour units.

Hilter screwed up by ordering von Kleist’s Armour Corp (I forget the number and I’m not sure if it was von Kleist…I think it was) to support Army Group South in it’s assault on the oilfields there. It was unnecessay and it was asked to swing back North. Clogging what roads were there and upsetting the invasion schedule.

Of course Stalingrad was a disaster, and it can all be placed on Hitler’s lack of “decisions based on experience”. There was a smaller undefended city north of Stalingrad that if taken, would have had the same strategic success if Stanligrad had fallen.

Operation Citadel, Russia’s defensive operations at the beginning of the invasion, and the operations of Army Group North (the only Army Group to fulfill its brief) will be discussed in the next lesson.

(Hope I got at least some of these facts straight…it has been a while. And thanks for letting me spout off topic. It was a blast from the past :slight_smile: )

[quote=“Alien”][quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
I am not convinced that Iraq is sooo bad for Bush. All the bad news recently has not hurt his poll figures much, has it?[/quote]
Incumbants with such a low position in the polls this close to an election have never won reelection. I read it a couple months back. Look it up for yourself if you need proof.[/quote]

May well be true. By recently, I was referring to a matter of the last few weeks. But remember I was making a point about news on the war in the future (not the past). I think most people have made up their minds on the war. More bombings may just remind people that Bush is a “War president.”

Also, you assume that it is the Iraq issue that is causing the low polls. i think people’s view of the economy is another strong cause. So, the marginal change in the numbers in the future may be due to peoples’ changing views on the economy.

[quote=“alien”]

As Clinton said last night at the convention (GREAT SPEECH, btw, for those who missed it. Brokaw called him Elvis!),

“Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.” [/quote]

Indeed - but decisiveness and dithering are. And that was the contrast I was making.

[quote=“alien”][quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Very close this election - my suspicion has all along been that Bush might just, just squeak in again. [/quote]
Good suspicion. Black box voting will have a lot to do with an upset such as that.[/quote]

Until then, you were being quite adult! :wink: I mean, really, that’s a wee bit silly.

[quote=“alien”]

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
If Bush loses, I think it will be because people believe the danger is passed and its time to rebuild ties with France! Much as that will have FS spitting blood.[/quote]
Well, yeah, that, and the economy is in shambles,[/quote]

It isn’t in a shambles. I believe it is weaker than most people imagine. But… Any weaknesses there are in the economy though come from a) an unsustainable housing bubble - the Greenspan effect and b) the build up of personal debt during the roaring 90s.

So, Bush may well not get elected because of a deteriorating economy around election time, but I would not BLAME him for it, which you seem to do in a rather naive way.

It is too high. It is not “out of control.” Taxes will have to be raised, i feel or dramatic cuts in spending. take your pick.

Something which happened during the Clinton years to an astonishing degree. The rise of corporate CEOs as national heroes - the impact of technology on the wages of skilled and unskilled workers. Would you hold clinton accountable for that? If not, then why Bush?

Despite the fact that spending on education has gone up dramatically. The fault seems to lie at the state level, where funds are not being spent. So…, what? You would increase spending even more to have the states not spend even higher sums? Besides, this line was just a little campaign slogan, devoid of much meaning, wasn’t it now?

Alien, you have my vote at least, for the title of one of the forum’s more peurile posters.

Dare I say it but Bush will lose because [color=red]
he is a knob
[/color].

:wink:

BroonAgain

FS wrote:

The latest wired news:

So Fred, even if you’re right about US331 billion that would still be just short of a record deficit. IMPRESSIVE to the average voter I would say.

As for the economy in general, what have you heard Bush say that would give you the impression he will make things better? The economy will grow, Bush isn’t causing that anymore than he makes the sun rise, they’re both facts of life, but will his policies help job creation and higher than average economic growth? Oh and will he, as a believer in free-trade end the punishing tariffs on softwood lumber which are putting people in my country out of work? It would only be fair given a little agreement we have called NAFTA.

That’s not bad but mismanging an occupation so badly that you are not able to even spend the money you want is bad. Mismanaging an occupation so badly that more people than neccessary have died is bad. Having Iraqis despise you more than the tyrant you overthrew is bad. What goodwill has the US generated in the middle east? None. Will any arise even if Iraq becomes democratic? No. Even Iraq will remain sympathetic to anti-american rhetoric. 70% unemployment across the country, security in disarray, reconstruction at a standstill, a government in power with prescious little legitimacy, a reviled US army, an insurgency that shows no sign of ending, not to mention the entire rationale for war discredited and the so-called coaliton of the willing looking to exit as quickly as possible because they can no longer justify losing their own people for this cause. These are successes for you? For this debacle people should reward Bush with another term?

The only way to continue the war on terror is with international cooperation and that is severly hampered having Bush in power.

[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]
That’s not bad but mismanging an occupation so badly that you are not able to even spend the money you want is bad. Mismanaging an occupation so badly that more people than neccessary have died is bad. Having Iraqis despise you more than the tyrant you overthrew is bad. What goodwill has the US generated in the middle east? None. Will any arise even if Iraq becomes democratic? No. Even Iraq will remain sympathetic to anti-American rhetoric. 70% unemployment across the country, security in disarray, reconstruction at a standstill, a government in power with prescious little legitimacy, a reviled US army, an insurgency that shows no sign of ending, not to mention the entire rationale for war discredited and the so-called coaliton of the willing looking to exit as quickly as possible because they can no longer justify losing their own people for this cause. These are successes for you? For this debacle people should reward Bush with another term?

The only way to continue the war on terror is with international cooperation and that is severly hampered having Bush in power.[/quote]

Superbly said. :notworthy: All of the above rings true. And why? Because Bush is…

BroonAdulation

70% unemployment in Iraq is the figure BEFORE the invasion. This is now estimated at 30% to 40% down substantially I would say.

Now, let me get these deficit figures. I am sure that this was just posted and that the figure was down in the US$300s of billions not US$450 billion and that a surplus was posted in June. I just posted this a few days ago so let me find this again. Ergo, I am challenging your assertions. Give me a bit of time though since I have a meeting in a few minutes. I will get back to you on this.