It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vietnam 2 called Iraq

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
According to the latest opinion polls in America, 59% of people think the war was a mistake. Bush has had an approval drop to 40% of the electorate,so it looks to me the public feel the same way about this war as the Vietnam one.
Link www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
According to the latest opinion polls in America, 59% of people think the war was a mistake. Bush has had an approval drop to 40% of the electorate,so it looks to me the public feel the same way about this war as the Vietnam one.
Link www.washingtonpost.com...


If thats true, what does it change, of course no one likes war.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The issue is not war in general, but that the number of people in the US who feel any tacit level of support for this illegal war has plummeted.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The issue is not war in general, but that the number of people in the US who feel any tacit level of support for this illegal war has plummeted.


Well, George Bush does what he thinks is right; he hates polls. Wars are not fought according to public opinion polls and that is a good thing.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Iraq also had the largest army in the middle-east.

In 1990 that would have been true. In 2003 it wasn't and even if it was, it's equipment and condition was abysmal.


Originally posted by Boatphone
The majority of Americans did, indeed, vote for George W. Bush in 2004.

No they did not, only the majority of those eligible to vote who cared enough to actually vote did so for Bush. That is roughly around 30% or so of those eligible to to vote.



Originally posted by Boatphone
Well, George Bush does what he thinks is right; he hates polls. Wars are not fought according to public opinion polls and that is a good thing.

Yes, it is a demonstration of true democracy that the leaders don't care for the opinion of the electorate, especially on such important matters as war.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

In 1990 that would have been true. In 2003 it wasn't and even if it was, it's equipment and condition was abysmal.


Yes, it was in bad condition but still could have done damage in the middle east.


No they did not, only the majority of those eligible to vote who cared enough to actually vote did so for Bush. That is roughly around 30% or so of those eligible to to vote.


Sorry, the majority of Americans who cared voted for George W. Bush. So, they won’t mind having George W. Bush seeing as they don’t care. Of course only people eligible to vote voted!!


Yes, it is a demonstration of true democracy that the leaders don't care for the opinion of the electorate, especially on such important matters as war.


The United States of America was not set up to fight wars based on public opinion, and that is a good thing.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Boatphone,


Originally posted by BoatphoneThe United States of America was not set up to fight wars based on public opinion, and that is a good thing.


So are you saying it was setup to fight wars on the whim of a handful of politicians and profiteers?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

The United States of America was not set up to fight wars based on public opinion, and that is a good thing.


If Vietnam has taught us anything, it's the opposite. The war may have turned out differently had it been popular at home. Why do you think politicians try so hard to "sell" their wars to the electorate? Because public opinion matters! And that's a good thing.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Ive always though since the attack on the WTC that if US/UK went to the Middle East to sort the problem then it would be more of a Northern Ireland situation than a Vietnam situation. With each passing day i fear Im being proven right.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This war has not been a moral war, but a war created by people who benefit by creating a fear in the population that they need to fight against an enemy ie Terrorists. It used to be the Russians but they don't count now. How many Countries has America lined up to be attacked all in the name of making money for the few who profit from theses wars?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I feel the Iraq war was carried out because that area of the world has been a major problem for decades and the reason the US done what they did is because they realised that they are not immune from outside terrorist attack. Also by going into the middle east first the war cost would be dramatically reduced with all the money earned from contracts in the oil industry.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Boatphone,


Originally posted by BoatphoneThe United States of America was not set up to fight wars based on public opinion, and that is a good thing.


So are you saying it was setup to fight wars on the whim of a handful of politicians and profiteers?

Cheers

BHR


America is run by the men and women that we the people elect! The go the governing until the next election. The population at large does not have a full understanding of the complex global issues involved in this war so it is a good thing that wars are not fought by popular vote, or poll.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by Boatphone

The United States of America was not set up to fight wars based on public opinion, and that is a good thing.


If Vietnam has taught us anything, it's the opposite. The war may have turned out differently had it been popular at home. Why do you think politicians try so hard to "sell" their wars to the electorate? Because public opinion matters! And that's a good thing.

-koji K.


We "lost" the war in Vietnam because of the drug-loving, dirty, hippies who helped the enemy but underminding support for the war at home. So, yes public support for the war is important but the public should not be voting on such issues.

This means that each time you complain about this war, you are helping the terrorists.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Boatphone,


Originally posted by BoatphoneThe United States of America was not set up to fight wars based on public opinion, and that is a good thing.


So are you saying it was setup to fight wars on the whim of a handful of politicians and profiteers?

Cheers

BHR


America is run by the men and women that we the people elect! The go the governing until the next election. The population at large does not have a full understanding of the complex global issues involved in this war so it is a good thing that wars are not fought by popular vote, or poll.



Never mind the war. Does your average voter know the slightest thing about the economics of the country and how to run them successfully? How are you meant to choose a party when something as major as this is a struggle to get your head around.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I honestly think a closer comparison could be made with the Soviets in Afghanistan to the situation in Iraq than Vietnam.

That said all conflicts are different from eachother and comparing the dynamics of one with another would be doing it a disservice. You have to judge them independently of eachother imo



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
We "lost" the war in Vietnam because of the drug-loving, dirty, hippies who helped the enemy but underminding support for the war at home. So, yes public support for the war is important but the public should not be voting on such issues.

This means that each time you complain about this war, you are helping the terrorists.


Do you really believe that by Nixon's era the only people against the war were "drug loving, dirty hippies?" Yes, there were plenty of them against the war, but more importantly many perfectly respectable people were against the war. Even the secretaries of defense Robert McNamara and Clark Clifford by then had come to regard the war as a hopeless quagmire. It's fashionable now to believe America lost that war because of dwindling public support, but this was one factor among many. Still, I don't have the space or time here to debate that war in its entirety.

Each time a U.S. citizen, Iraqi, or coalition member complains about the war they are exercising their democratic right. In a democracy, wars should not be declared unless the leadership can count on the support of the people. This was the lesson we failed to learn from Vietnam. People cannot simply be told to shut up and go along with any war the leadership wants to declare... what value would our democracy be, in that case? This war is being declared in my name.

And it's not just the war, it's a fundamental policy shift in my government which I am opposed to: one of unilateralism and preemptive wars. I can understand the argument that some actions the government takes should be left out of the hands of the masses, but a decision of this scope should not be, and really cannot be- it's just impossible. Wars need support, period.

Personally, I support the idea of universal conscription. I think if everybody in the U.S. had to serve, this war would never have been allowed to happen, because more people would realize the stake they had in the decisions made in their name.

-koji K.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Personally, I support the idea of universal conscription. I think if everybody in the U.S. had to serve, this war would never have been allowed to happen, because more people would realize the stake they had in the decisions made in their name.

-koji K.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by koji_K]


during WW2 there were people who didnt want to fight the Germans or the Japanese. so in reality we could lost that war too. but we didnt.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

during WW2 there were people who didnt want to fight the Germans or the Japanese. so in reality we could lost that war too. but we didnt.


there were such people and we could have lost world war 2 for any number of reasons. but by and large world war 2 was not a fatally 'unpopular' war. im not sure if i catch the point you're making.


-koji K.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
. im not sure if i catch the point you're making.


-koji K.


wars are always unpopular, and in anicase i never heard of a popular war where millions die. people fight. in Vietnam we try to fight off the North Vietnamese invasion just like North Korea and South Korea. we save South Korea but we fail to save the South Vietnam. maybe its because the American people dont feel like sending boys and girls in uniform to save other nations that are our allies. i guess we aint so compassionate animore.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join