Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Bob Willard wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>:
>>>
>>> > I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in
>>> > Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties aren't
>>>>anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best, for that
>>>>matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between the USSR
>>>>and the US and this was the real reason the war lasted so long.
>>>>We could have won it but we would probably have ended up fighting
>>>>the Chinese, just like in Korea. Iraq is not even close to this
>>>>type of war. The recent news report seem to suggest that troop
>>>>levels will drop by 100,000 next year. I hope they are correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US
>>>military ships and planes to help the French move troops and
>>>supplies to Vietnam starting in late 1945, until the fall of Saigon
>>>in the spring of 1975.
>>>
>>>To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend
>>>Barbara Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only
>>>the Dubya gang had read and understood it ...
>>
>>I'm not familiar with the book you referenced but nobody knows the
>>outcome of the Iraq war and no one knows if it will parallel Vietnam
>>or any other war.
>
>
> The lack of a good reason for being there and the lack of an exit
> strategy is certainly common to both.
>
>
>>Time will tell if it was worth fighting and even
>>then I doubt everyone will agree. All we have now are opinions
>>about it and nobody can prove their opinion is right.
>
>
> Exactly. And that's just what we're doing here. Posting opinions.
>
>
>>As I told Joe, history will be the judge of President Bush.
>
>
> As it is for everyone.
>
>
>>There
>>are also many people who just hate him and there is absolutely
>>nothing he can do in their eyes that is acceptable. Basically, they
>>have no ability to be objective. Many of the complainers on the
>>Iraq war are these people and they ignore the good things that have
>>resulted from the conflict and just dwell on the negative. Many
>>others are just out to make political hay from complaining about the
>>war. For people that are motivated by these reasons it is a waste
>>of time to discuss the topic with them. They are not really wanting
>>good a debate. They just want to damage President Bush any and
>>every way they can.
>
>
> Michael, I think the polarization you describe is largely due to (a)
> the way in which this administration carried out the whole post-9/11
> thing (Saddam/Iraq/Bin Laden/WMD/etc.), (b) what they actually did,
> and (c) the perception (real or imagined) that the current
> administration is patronizing the American public.
>
> I, along with many others, think that the American public was
> basically deceived and the present administration continues to this
> day to "spin" the whole thing for their own benefit. At this point,
> people are downright angry that the administration thinks they are
> that gullible. Some people believe that the administration has
> downright lied to them.

I'll admit that I'm a hawk when it comes to national defense.
Basically, if people are trying to kill us, I want to error on the side
of caution and take out the threat before they get a chance to organize
and come after us on our own soil. If our government would have taken
care of business during the 1990's, especially after the first World
Trade Center bombing, 9-11 would likely have never happened. Now I
don't want to turn this into a liberal verses conservative rant but the
ones responsible for our security during the 1990's was the Democrats.
Clinton was our Commander In Chief. His security policies let Bin Laden
and his cronies languish in Afghanistan and hatch plans to kill us and
many other people. Clinton knew he was a threat because he tried to
kill him with a few cruise missiles while he was in office. One well
placed CIA sniper during the 1990's would have saved the world a whole
lot of grief. The fact 9-11 occurred makes me think their (Democrats)
way of dealing with terrorists was not effective. Leaving them alone
got us nothing but 3,000 dead people in a matter of hours. I think many
people see it this way too. 9-11 was the price we paid for Clinton
ignoring terrorist threats and castrating the CIA. To me, it is a clear
black and white issue.

One thing I know as an indisputable fact is it is better to fight a war
on your enemy's soil than your own. I'm a firm believer in taking it to
them so they can't get to us here. I think that in the days after 9-11
most of us expected to be attacked numerous times over the last four
years. Now we can all guess why we haven't been hit but you can't deny
that part of the reason is that we have kept the terrorists busy in the
Middle East. I think this is exactly why Bush went into Iraq. He
wanted to make a situation that would attract terrorists and draw them
into a conflict with our military. Since Saddam promoted terrorism he
was also part of the overall problem. No one can deny that he needed to
go away for a multitude of reasons. Bush put it all on the line when he
went into Iraq and I think in his mind it was a vital step in protecting
the country. He knew it could prevent him from being re-elected and
took the gamble.

I know many people don't like what Bush has done in the war on terror
but many of those people hated him before he took office and they were
itching to politicize the war at the first opportunity. If Bush was
Clinton, the Democrats would be swinging the war hatchet with wild
abandon getting every political benefit they could, just like Bush has.
They gave Clinton a free pass on Kosovo. If Bush had done it they
would have tried to crucify him like they are now. As for what
percentage of the US population supports Bush all you need to do is look
at his poll numbers regarding the overall job he has done fighting
terrorism. They have been consistently high since 9-11. If you isolate
parts of it, like the Iraq war, the numbers drop but overall he gets
good marks. Now I think the reason for this is that most people know
that war is a hit and miss proposition. While he hasn't made 100% right
decisions most people feel he is working in the country's best interest
and he means business when it come to killing the people who are out to
kill us and that is what the majority of us want him to do.

I think many of us have forgotten that the terrorists we are fighting
want to wipe us off the face of the earth. If they could they would
detonate nuclear warheads in every city in the US and not feel a bit of
guilt. They want to do far more to us than Hitler ever planned. They
are very serious about killing us. Serious enough to kill themselves to
get the job done. I haven't forgotten this and neither has Bush. IMO,
that is why he will never let up on them.

One last point, when I hear people say they feel deceived by Bush I look
back at history and ask "What President didn't use some amount of
deception at the start of a war?" Roosevelt was a master at it prior to
WWII. Johnson did it with Vietnam. Truman did it with Korea. What
makes this war any different? Bush saw a threat that, in his opinion,
needed dealt with. No president goes to war without selling it to the
public. The country had a chance to judge him during the last election.
He was re-elected. Did he use the war for political benefit? Yes he
did. Did the Democrats use the war for political benefit? Yes they
did. I guess they are even then.

> The question that people ask themselves is: "Are we better off now
> than we were before?" I certainly believe that the country is _not_
> better off now. In no particular order, we're basically hated around
> the world, we've got the worst debt we've ever seen, we're in a war
> that was started for dubious reasons and has no end in sight, and
> we've got a president that's trying to dismantle Social Security.

How much has the value of your home increased since Bush has been in
office? Around here most homes have nearly doubled in value. Is home
ownership at an all time high? Yes it is. Is it at an all time high
among minorities? Yes it is. Am I making more money than I was 5 years
ago? Yes I am. Has inflation been in check for the last five years?
Yes it has. Has interest rates been at historic lows the last five
years? Yes they have. Have people greatly reduced their mortgage
payments through refinancing during the last five years? Yes they have.
Did Bush inherit a recession when he took office? Yes he did. Are we
in a recession now? No we are not.

Not everything is perfect but we are far from circling the economic
drain. The debt we have now, as a percentage of GDP, is not the worst
we have seen and it is much lower than most other advanced countries.
Check out this link: http://tinyurl.com/8vpfd It shows tax revenues
are increasing far beyond expectations. Imagine that, taxes were cut
and tax revenues are up. Maybe Bush wasn't just blowing hot air
campaigning in the last election.

As for dismantling Social Security that isn't the plan Bush is
promoting. Every person has the choice to keep the status quo or put a
portion of their withholding into a private account. If your son would
have that option, over his life span he would get a far, far better
return on his money verses what he would see from the government. Chile
made private accounts available to their citizens years and years ago
and in the beginning very few signed up for it. The ones that did had
much more money to retire on than those that didn't. Now over 90% of
the work force signs up for the private accounts. If it worked in Chile
I can't see why it wouldn't work here. one of my biggest gripes with
Democrats is they think they know how to spend our money better than we
do. They want us dependent on the government and the best way to
accomplish it is to tax the hell out of us and make the government the
sole provider for vital services such as health care and retirement checks.

> I'd say there are at least a few damn good reasons why a lot of people
> are upset with this guy.

Reasons can be found to dislike anybody. Look what they came up with
for Jesus Christ.

Damn, Joe, I spent WWWAAYYY too much time posting this response.