Last night on the news the reporter quoted a poll, which I'm assuming came from NBC since I was watching an NBC station, that said 56% of Americans now feel that the war was not worth it at all, and I somewhat agree. Snoop in another mentioned WWII and how we didn't give up, but the thing is with WWII we weren't running PC war and had a hell of a lot more countries that have a lot of troops (aka Soviet Union) backing us.

I voted yes. The place is a mess. If they can't act right then yeah, I think someone should straighten them out. I'm speaking in relation to injustice, torture, beheadings, murdering and rape, not "cultural" differences.

I voted yes. We all grow tired of the death and destruction, but we can't pull out yet. We've come this far and we have to finish it. By finishing, I mean provide the new Iraq with the groundwork to rebuild their country as a democracy. Once we point them in the right direction and give them a fighting chance, they should be on their own.

If it works, we have a friendly country in the middle of one of the world's biggest flashpoints.

If it's not worth it, what's the alternative? The US completely packing up and leaving? Wait for a Taliban-like regime to rise up and form the next terrorist training ground country?

I'm not optimistic for Iraq, but I'm willing to let them have their elections and start to walk on their own before I'm willing to consider it's no longer worth it.

With the WW2 comparisons being mentioned today, wasn't Germany circa 1946, much like Iraq of today. Weren't many of the same sentiments being felt by war-weary Amercans then?

From the New York Times -- any of this sound familiar????

Headline: Germans Reveal Hate of Americans. Oct. 31, 1945.
The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared. This official views the situation as so serious that he and others are protesting the withdrawal of 1,600 experienced military-government officers from the German governments on township, county and regional levels between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15."

Another headline, November 18th, 1945, from the New York Times: Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared.

"Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration."


"Germans Declare Americans Hated, December 3rd, 1945. (Stories)
An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces in the European Theatre recently. Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment."

December 19th, 1945. "German Election Set In Towns of U.S. Zone. "United States Seventh Army headquarters announced today that plans had been completed for initial German elections in January at Gemuende. A statement said that a vast majority of Germans remained passive in attitude toward politics and displayed no disposition to take over civic responsibilities."

I disagree, trueblue. The National Socialist (Nazi) movement had a big impact on post-war Germany reconstruction. I think they called themselves "Werewolves" or something along those lines. While they may not have caused the casualties that are being caused in Iraq by insurgents, many resources were wasted fighting the rumors of elite SS troops hiding out and preparing to wage guerilla warfare on the occupying forces.

Look it up. It very interesting reading if you're into that time period.

I can see where you're coming from SMan, but I'm concerned that the elections will never happen, and that we are just sacrificing our young people for nothing. There does seem to be more of them than there is of us.

Middle Eastern psychology must be much different than the psychology of the rest of the world - it seems to me that the people over there would be so happy to be rid of Saddam, and that they would welcome elections. Instead, there are groups of people who seem determined to make it more of the same. Even if the groups aren't specifically from Iraq, they are from the Middle East. I just don't understand why they think that way. It hasn't been a bed of roses, but they have had a taste of what life without Saddam is like - why would they choose to remain the way they are?

Absolutely it did. Until the Marshal Plan some two years after the war stopped, Germany was borderline chaos.

Enough about Germany though. tb has an excellent point about the administration. Why wouldn't they be putting every resource needed into getting this [Iraq] done as quickly and efficiently as possible? Bush has his second term, its obvious Rumsfeld is staying as long as he wants regardless of what happens, so why not just do what it takes, even if it's unpopular. Crackdowns, smackdowns, more troops, or whatever. Just get it done!

The correct answer is the second one. In my opinion, of course.

Maybe? Maybe? Has everybody forgotten him telling us he's never made a mistake?

I voted Yes with some hesitataion.

Reason? More and more everyday, I see the politicians calling the shots in Iraq more than I do the Generals on the ground. This brings us into the realm of trying to fight a "PC" war , which in turn leads to less success (ex...more coalition casualties, local corruption, and funding slipping off into lala land) on the battleground. I too have a problem with the extensions of deployment dealt down to the National Guard units.

But to say that Iraq or the middle east would be a better place today with Saddam and his croonies still in power is just absurd. Give it time folks, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Source time, Sheash. Caught you again playing fast and loose with the truth.

tb,

Oh I saw it. The whole question was the media trying to lay a trap for Bush -- get him to admit he made a mistake on Iraq so Kerry could use his own words as campaign fodder. The papers were praying for a front page quote. I would not have fallen for it either.

Ever recall anyone in the press at a major news conference asking Clinton to admit his mistakes related to the armed forces being deployed? Or Truman or Roosevelt?

But Sheash's quote would lead one to believe Bush said "I never made a mistake" which is patently untrue and disproven even by your own post.

Sorry, but you didn't catch me doing anything of the kind.

Was it the first presidential debate? The one where he was asked if he had made any mistakes during his current presidency? If I recall, he said that he had not made any mistakes.

You and I know better than that. He's human, he's made mistakes. What turned me off totally is that he wasn't man enough to admit it.

Your context is limited as well -- I've caught Sheash before.

Many, if not most, of the current Bush critics said for years that Reagan would get us into WWIII with Russia, the Berlin wall would never fall, Pershing missles in Europe was a stupid idea, he was a senile, crazy cowboy, etc.

Time will tell who's right yet again...

Snoopy


Our media:

Couldn't trap a bag of cement.

Couldn't trap a bear in a phone booth.

Couldn't trap a blind mouse in a bathtub with a pound of cheese.

Couldn't trap a dead cat.

Take your pick.

The fact of the matter is simply this: Bush won the election, in spite of the Dims making it all about the war in Iraq. Our nation is behind Bush and the war, no matter what kind of spin the liberal media try to put on it or how hard they try to trap him. And regardless of how much the flaming libs here b*tch and complain - they're simply sore losers who are out of touch with mainstream America.

Yeah, but he won the election, and your loser didn't. So who got the last and biggest laugh?

Merry Christmas!!!!

Yes, he won the election, and he is our president whether I voted for him or not.

BUT I wouldn't be much of a person if I didn't question whether the man made a mistake committing us to a war that seems like is only an exercise in sacrificing young lives to lunatics.

I don't care WHO the president is (whether he be Bush, Kerry, Nader, or Perot), that person needs to make the decisions that bring this mess to a better ending than this one is beginning to look like.

Greaseman suggested this morning that we ought to drop a bomb like we did during WWII. That's a bit drastic, but no less drastic than what they are doing to our soldiers.

If it wasn't for all the nukes/potential nukes in that area (Iran, Pakistan) I'd say bomb the bass turds, also! Not that I don't feel sympathy for the innocent who would also be killed. See? PC war! Heaven forbid any non-military personnel get harmed. It's war people, not a Pacers-Pistons game!

The channel 4 news (nbc) just had a short piece where they talked to a guy from Fort Hood who has to notify the soldier's families when they've been lost. He remembered the first person he had to notify, back in 2002, I think he said. It was a woman who was 4 months pregnant who also had 2 small children. What a gut-wrenching job!

Same to you.


Peace on earth would be a great gift indeed.

I'm divided over the question of whether it's "worth it". I believe it was necessary that we go in as we did, and try to restore some semblence of order, but at this point I'm not 100% convinced we shouldn't just take off and let them fend for themselves. If Syria and Iran keep interfering, kick their butts - air strikes, and be merciless about it. I guess we could hang around for the first set of election before tasking off, but I don't think we ought to stay there much longer, that's for sure.

IMO we need to keep in mind that neither we nor the UN have had much luck with nation-building. We need to kill Saddam and make one last BIG strike against his supporters, then leave. Send in food and other humanitarian aid if you want, but IMO we ought to abandon this foolish notion that we can build a democracy over there. If they all want to kill each other, that's their own business.

If they reach the point where they start to pose a threat to Israel, the U.S., or the general stability of the region again, lob as many bombs and missiles their way as we need to, but leave it at that.

Saddam was so entrenched that we had to go in with a huge force and kick some major booty. He was a major threat to our own and other nations' security, and it was necessary that we go to war to take care of the threat. But that job is pretty much done now, or at least as done as it's gonna be, and maybe it's time to go home.