|
CalPundit has a rather on point post about the press's coverage of the war:
Bill Schneider on CNN reports that American morale is holding up well: 70% of Americans still support the war. Lou Dobbs asks, what does it mean? Schneider: "It shows that the American public is pretty shrewd....We're in this for the long run."
Yeah, baby! Seven whole days and we're still supporting the war! We Americans really know how to stick it out, don't we?
Can someone please shut these nitwits up?
I agree with that sentiment, but I have to disagree with his postscript:
I wonder what the real American tolerance for war is these days? In the last 30 years we haven't waged a war longer than a couple of months or with more than 300 deaths. Does anyone seriously believe that the American public would tolerate Gulf War II if it lasted a year and took 10,000 lives? It's not likely that we'll have to find out, but talking about the grim determination of the United States until we approach these kinds of figures seems laughable.
I do not think Americans are casualty shy, per se. I think that if the American public is convinced that the sacrifice is worth the cost, then they will support a war. I was not alive during the majority of the Vietnam War, so I cannot speak authoritatively to the mood of the time, but my reading of history has always been that it was not the casualties that ended the Vietnam War. Rather, it was the sense that the casualties occurred in the pursuit of a war that most thought was unwinnable, and a significant minority thought should not even be being fought.
I have no doubt that the American public would have accepted much higher rates of casualties in Afghanistan, because the end was deemed just, and the war deemed an appropriate method to achieve that end. I think that the Bush Administration suffered from the same concern about American's taste for casualties that Kevin Drum does - and it led to using the Northern Alliance instead of American troops in Tora Bora, perhaps the greatest lost opportunity of the war on terrorism.
If Bush is able to convince people that conquering Iraq is worth the cost, I think that the American public will support him short of entire armies disappearing in the sands of Iraq. That is one reason why it is important, I think, that protests go on. It reminds people that not everyone thinks this war is the best choice.
I think it possible that the Administration may have soft pedaled the nature of the war in part because the public was so split. Polls showed people more willing to support the war of the casualties were very light. In other words, at x number of deaths, a certain percentage of the population thought the end was worth the cost of the war. At y number of deaths, the cost was no longer acceptable to those people.
At any rate, I do not think Americans have an aversion to deaths in war. They have an aversion to pointless deaths in bad wars.
I think, sadly, that the big difference between present circumstances and the Vietnam war is that today there is no draft.
Posted by: Hugh GordonMan that Bill Schneider irritates me almost as much as Aaron Brown. His analysis is so dumbed down and sophomoric--70% approval shows Americans are 'shrewd', huh? Maybe what that really shows is that the national media, in its fawning unquestioning obedience to the Administration, is failing its First Amendment duty as watchdog for the public interest.
But Schneider's by far at his worst when the elections roll around.
Posted by: Prince RoyI just saw a blurb on the tube that's interesting.
Out of the entire 500+ United States Senators we have, only a shocking one or two of the Senator's children are in the military.
Talk about leadership...
Posted by: StanOnly one does...Tim Johnson. His son is in the 101st Airborne and served in Afghanistan. Yet John Thune had the gall to question Johnson's patriotism. Well, Thune lost and is a has-bin now, so we can't complain.
Posted by: gfyfeIraqis are too stupid to take their camels out to pee...they can't govern themselves, so we should. Screwballs. lol
Posted by: tofugirlAnd remember, it was Bush and company --led by Karl Rove, of course -- who went gunning after Johnson (for lack of a better word)back in November, as well as all those other Democrats who supported them, for Christ sakes, including the "unpatriotic" double amputee Vietnam veteran and Democratic senator Max Cleland.
What a bunch of thuggish bastards.
well x2 amputees won't contrib much to the war anyway so big deal. Max Cleland = thuggish bastard indeed lol
Posted by: tofugirl
Yeah, quite a site you've got going here... a tremendous load of crap from top to bottom. :)
BTW...
"500+ United States Senators" huh? When did we give each state 10 Senators? lol...
Part of the reason our military is so capable to begin with is because we've gotten rid of the draft. Obviously, some people are better than others at crawling under barbed wire and getting shot at. Those people willingly sign up, and get to work with a lot of other people who like to do the same type of thing. No offense to veterans, but when we were drafting people during previous wars, our military wasn't much better trained Iraq's is now. They were ok at doing run-of-the-mill military stuff, but they weren't extensively well-trained, and they didn't know much besides how to run, shoot, and duck.
Besides, if the draft is so good at stopping wars, what about Vietnam? That worked out really well.
Posted by: StephenAustin Cassidy, he clumsily used "Senators" when he meant "Congressman" you sanctimonius ass.
Others: Max Cleland is a triple amputee, and a decorated combat commander who lost his limbs in combat. I mean it wasn't a stray mortar shell hitting the Officers' Club or something.
Kevin, I was alive during Vietnam, 8 when it started, 16 when it ended and your main point is perfectly correct - Americans did by and large support the war until the perception was that it was unwinnable. The horrible irony is that the war started the same way this one did. Decisive firepower will make this war short. And Westmoreland really did promise that the "Boys will be home by Christmas" and I believe twice, once each in 1964 & 1965. Body counts were reported on TV every night and they were invariably in ratios like 30 Viet Cong, 10 ARVN (S. Viets) and 2 Americans. These were bullshit. The reality is that we were winning, but slowly and at significant cost. By 1967 they were back on their heels, and the desperate counter attacks in 1968 (Tet, Hue, Da Nang) effectively eliminated the Viet Cong as a fighting force, forcing North Vietnam into the war, which at that point was winnable. But the American people, having been lied to for years that we were killing the enemy dozens to one, logically concluded that the Vietnamese people as a whole so-hated us so much that they could absorb those casualties and still raise new armies at will. And those company and field grade officers that knew the truth and yet bought into the body-count system themselves undermined US support in the long run, and having then turned around and blamed the war protestors, need to take a hard look at themselves in the mirror. Americans admire today's military, they still trust today's military, but they admired and trusted the military in Vietnam only until they realized they had systematically been lied to. LBJ learned that lesson, Bush will too.
Posted by: Bruce WebbStephen "No offense to veterans, but when we were drafting people during previous wars, our military wasn't much better trained Iraq's is now" When you say something that is factually wrong and stupid to boot you are offensive. I hope that somone who was actually in Camp Lejeune in the sixties learning to be a Marine, or in Coronado learning to be a Navy Seal, or even as a draftee at Fort Benning learning to be a soldier hears you mouth off like that.
"Besides, if the draft is so good at stopping wars, what about Vietnam? That worked out really well." You jerk, when they abandoned the deferment system (that allowed any rich or middle-class kid who could earn a C at a shitty college to stay out of the war) and went to the lottery system that exposed everyone to the risk, guess what. Support for the war among the middle-class and rich went into the toilet. The war was still raging when my two older brothers got their numbers and you cannot believe the stress that people went through on lottery day. Knowing your kid could get a number in the low two digits had an amazing way of concentrating the mind.
You obviously have instant access to the vastest store of information every available and yet ...
Posted by: Bruce Webb"When you say something that is factually wrong and stupid to boot you are offensive. I hope that somone who was actually in Camp Lejeune in the sixties learning to be a Marine, or in Coronado learning to be a Navy Seal, or even as a draftee at Fort Benning learning to be a soldier hears you mouth off like that."
It doesn't matter who hears it; facts don't change. Volunteer militaries are stronger because individuals stay in longer and contribute more through training and support. Conscripted militaries are weaker, because many of the people don't really want to be soldiers, although they will participate out of patriotism and a sense of national duty. Some of the draftees are good soldiers, but a lot of the training effort is put into moderately able ones who utlimately pass right back into civilian life. Clearly, trainers who concentrate on a large number of people are less effective than trainers who concentrate on a small number of people. This principle also exists in academic class sizes. You can make an emotional argument all you want, but the facts remain the same.
"You jerk, when they abandoned the deferment system (that allowed any rich or middle-class kid who could earn a C at a shitty college to stay out of the war) and went to the lottery system that exposed everyone to the risk, guess what. Support for the war among the middle-class and rich went into the toilet."
The lottery system didn't win the war, though. Ultimately, we ended up pulling out and leaving the S. Vietnamese at the mercy of the communists. Ask some S. Viet sometime how high a price they paid for peace. I'm sure they could quote you a very large bill.
Posted by: Stephenbruce: max lost legs, big deal. my uncle was tortured/killed by commies, parents tortured for info. sis raped by COMMIES!! dad was pow, 20 yrs. we fianlly got out of viet on a raft. gee thanks peacers for leavin us. peacers = scared spineless coward chickensh!ts no respect from me
Posted by: tofugirlThe American military took all the people out of Nam that they could. Your problems have plenty of sympathy. However, railing against Americans because you weren't airlifted is stupid.
Get a life or go back to NAM.
Posted by: Steve Plonkairlift would be nonissue if US had won. i have a nice life, tho i visit viet.
Posted by: tofugirlbtw liberals screwed viet war up, more mil power = quicker victory. US must win wars not lose!
Posted by: tofugirlEx-Sen. Max Cleland was a Vietnam War hero, in case you all have forgotten. In addition, he was a moderately conservative Democrat who was supported by Sen. Zell Miller. Chambliss is a Georgia political opportunist, who had his head way up his ass when he even questioned Cleland's patriotism. Unfortunately, enough "Confederate battleflag wavers" and other right wing nuts got together to smear Cleland and win Chambliss the senate position.
A similar situation happened in the Georgia Governorship with wingnuts and Perdue. I am from another state, besides Georgia, but was dismayed when Gov. Barnes lost and was replaced by another wingnut from the far right. Perdue, the new governor, has already gone back on his word, faced reality, and tried to raise taxes.
In addition, Chambliss, the new Senator from Georgia, has rubberstamped the "New Patriot Act II", which would deport immigrants back to their countries for minor infractions of US laws. So, if I were you,"tofugirl", I would read up before you criticize Ex-Sen. Max Cleland, or any other hero in our country.
Posted by: Steve Plonklol i know about chamb, im naturalized tho. i have no prob w/ deporting illegals. return to sender! :)
Posted by: tofugirlbtw im not impressed if cleland is an amputated torso. i mean yipee hooray for limpwrist liberals. liverless liberals couldnt fight a dung flingin viet army. impress me again. : P
Posted by: tofugirl
This draft business is mindless nonsense and any comparison between this war and Vietnam is absurd. So far, 29 of our soldiers have been killed...
1. We do not need to draft 29 people to replace them.
2. We lost around 150 in the successful Gulf War I which lasted 40+ days. In fact, dozens of our aircraft were shot down during that campaign as well.
This was is going very smoothly, we're doing a bigger job than in 1991... and we're doing it even more successfully than GW1.
BTW... There's a big difference between Senators and the whole of Congress. I don't mean to be an "ass" or anything, but I'm not the one who doesn't grasp the difference. If you want to complain about Congress you should at least understand how it's structured. Could you even name you Congressman and Senators? I'm sure you can look them up, but I seriously wonder if you could name them off the top of your head.
The only thing worse than you guys and your ultra-liberal garbage is the general public's complete lack of background information on things. Most people seem to decide how the war is progressing based on what Jay Leno says each night.
Another "wingnut from the right" sounds off his hoot. See above--don't think that I would ever compare the Vietnam War to this one. I was just answering someone ragging on Cleland and Co.
You guys on the right--I am just left of center--try to pidgeon hole all people you disagree with as "Liberals". I am a progressive voter and "that dog don't hunt anymore"...to quote my friend Bill Clinton. So, read up or shut up.
Posted by: Steve Plonk Levitra provided first time success and reliable improvement of erection quality for many men. Men reported having harder erections and improved overall sexual experiences.Clinically Levitra has been proven to greatly improve erectile function even in men who had other health factors, like diabetes or prostate surgery. Every one can
Buy Levitra at
LevitraCart.Com , it also provides the Levitra Online price compare list.
http://www.levitracart.com
Levitra provided first time success and reliable improvement of erection quality for many men. Men reported having harder erections and improved overall sexual experiences.Clinically Levitra has been proven to greatly improve erectile function even in men who had other health factors, like diabetes or prostate surgery. Every one can
Buy Levitra at
LevitraCart.Com , it also provides the Levitra Online price compare list.
http://www.levitracart.com
Levitra provided first time success and reliable improvement of erection quality for many men. Men reported having harder erections and improved overall sexual experiences.Clinically Levitra has been proven to greatly improve erectile function even in men who had other health factors, like diabetes or prostate surgery. Every one can
Buy Levitra at
LevitraCart.Com , it also provides the Levitra Online price compare list.
http://www.levitracart.com
Levitra provided first time success and reliable improvement of erection quality for many men. Men reported having harder erections and improved overall sexual experiences.Clinically Levitra has been proven to greatly improve erectile function even in men who had other health factors, like diabetes or prostate surgery. Every one can
Buy Levitra at
LevitraCart.Com , it also provides the Levitra Online price compare list.
http://www.levitracart.com
