Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Specifically, do you approve of the president's performance in Iraq? 38% say yes.
Here's my beef with polls and the polls taken on how Bush is handling Iraq:
79% Say Success In Iraq is Important, 48% Say Success is
Read it, look at the numbers a few times, then contrast and compare to those numbers indicating Bush's handling of Iraq. See anything out of wack
here? Let me help you: the American people, as par, are torn between death toll numbers and what is the right and proper thing to do in Iraq. Again,
the polls indicating Bush's handling of Iraq are meaningless and amounts to weak-kneed reactions.
Americans have a long history of being able to tolerate high death tolls when they determine the cause is worth it (WWI & WWII).
As a student of American and European history, let me assure you with history as my witness, that the American people were vehemently against US
involvement in WWI, thus they were not
tolerate of high death tolls. The media was censored, etc. You are wrong on this account, very wrong.
The Vietnam and Iraq wars were started on false pretenses...
Again, history indicates otherwise.
Read up on why and when the US first became involved in Vietnam. Hint: US involvement in Vietnam was 25 years.
Read about the Cold War policies of that historical time period.
Read up on the Domino Theory/Effect, among a host of other things you have failed to take into account when you mention Vietnam and "false
. You may fool those who have little clue on the origins of US involvement in Vietnam, but you cannot fool a student of history.
As for Iraq, that is still debatable to you and I, and certainly is still debatable in the realm of active historians.
....and share the characteristic of being fundamentally unwinnable because of no clear military goal. That is why the American public turned
against the Vietnam war and is turning against the Iraq war. Not the death toll per se.
Your partially correct here Benevolent Heretic.
The characteristics and unwinnable
have a number of similarities, mainly the anti-war press/media and meddling weak-kneed politicians who kept
the military's hands tied. You know, like going to a bar fight with one hand tied behind your back? The American people turned against the Vietnam
war because the Vietnam war became the first televised war to be brought to the American dinner table, Benevolent Heretic, all courtesy of the
anti-war media. Day-in-day out viewing of war in its most horrific fashion, and all available for the evening news viewing crowd. No, the American
people mainly turned against the Vietnam war because of one main factor: the anti-war mainstream news media. Again, the very same media today that is
doing its utmost best to do the same with Iraq.
To accuse Americans of not being strong enough to handle a high death toll is selling them short, in my opinion. They can. They just dont like to do
it for 'BS' reasons, hence the BS protectors.
I'll stick with what I asserted.
In general terms, the American people are weak-kneed when it comes to death tolls, and always has been, even when fighting a so-called just
[edit on 29-8-2005 by Seekerof]