masterrig 1 #51 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteOver the years, term limits have been mentioned but, the idea seems to fade about as quickly as it is mentioned. The problem is that THEY would have to vote term limits. And they will never do that. ______________________________ Sad to say, you're absolutely correct! Hell! Why, ruin a good thing. I'm aware of the fact that there are laws about senators and congressmen not recieving 'gifts' or pay-offs but, where there's a will... there's a way. What we the people need to do is, each time they come-up for re-election... vote for someone else. That will never happen due to party affililiations and all that crap. Looks like, they got us by the short-hairs! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #52 January 12, 2007 QuoteI don't recall many "Bush haters" opposing the invasion of Afghanistan. If only he'd kept his focus there he wouldn't have approval numbers in the basement. I disagree. I think the tide would have turned either way. Once the news shows the rising body count of ANY war the population will turn. Nam was the first time that almost instant reports were available to the people back home and the information flows even faster now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #53 January 12, 2007 QuoteWars are the last resort of the desperate when every conceivable other option has failed How would you deal with OBL? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #54 January 12, 2007 It's not just the body count. It's a combination of body count with a perception of a bullshit war. The rising body count of WW2 didn't lead to pullout. Even though notice was slower, there were enough more bodies that it probably made up for the speed of information flow. There would have been people tired of Afghanistan (there were people against WW2). It's a close-to-unholdable place due to its topology and location; consider the outsiders who have tried to hold it and failed. But a lot of the world would have stood with us, which would have kept a noticeable percentage of folks less negatively disposed towards the current administration. If this adminstration could continue with the amount of negative reaction it's getting now, just think of how much better it would have been with a 10% improvement in approval ratings. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #55 January 12, 2007 QuoteIt's not just the body count. It's a combination of body count with a perception of a bullshit war I disagree. The majority of the population was in favor of the war before it started. QuoteEven though notice was slower, there were enough more bodies that it probably made up for the speed of information flow. I see your point, but disagree. It is the daily reporting of the violence that people have grown sick of. As for number of casulties even the US Civil War lost more in ONE battle than we have lost so far. Quote But a lot of the world would have stood with us, which would have kept a noticeable percentage of folks less negatively disposed towards the current administration But that I feel is due to the speed of reporting and the access to it, more than we have ever had before. Even the negative reporting from otehr countries is constant and daily. Take this forum for example...In less than on min we can have people from three of more countries give an opion on a topic. Unheard of even in Gulf War 1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #56 January 12, 2007 QuoteThe majority of the population was in favor of the war before it startedIf so, it was a very slim majority, and that support was based in part of assertions that there were WMD in Iraq, and implications that Iraq had contributed to 9/11. Neither of those conditions apply to Afghanistan, so there wouldn't be the disillusionment changing people's perceptions. Personally, I think insulating us from the war too much is a big mistake. Because war is tough, and if it's only tough on the other country, then it might make us a little too willing to use it instead of diplomacy. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #57 January 12, 2007 QuoteIf so, it was a very slim majority, and that support was based in part of assertions that there were WMD in Iraq, and implications that Iraq had contributed to 9/11. Neither of those conditions apply to Afghanistan, so there wouldn't be the disillusionment changing people's perceptions. My point is that the decline in support has been due to the speed of communication. People hearing, seeing, reading about people who dies TODAY...Something that has never been available before. I am not debating the war. But I doubt ANY war EVER fought could remain "popular" with todays ability to communicate. QuotePersonally, I think insulating us from the war too much is a big mistake. Because war is tough, and if it's only tough on the other country, then it might make us a little too willing to use it instead of diplomacy. Again, not debating right or wrong. Just pointing out how I doubt ANY war could remain "popular" today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #58 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteI don't recall many "Bush haters" opposing the invasion of Afghanistan. If only he'd kept his focus there he wouldn't have approval numbers in the basement. I disagree. I think the tide would have turned either way. Once the news shows the rising body count of ANY war the population will turn. Nam was the first time that almost instant reports were available to the people back home and the information flows even faster now. Do you disagree that almost no one of any political persuasion opposed the Afghanistan campaign?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #59 January 13, 2007 >How would you deal with OBL? Find him and arrest/kill him, I don't much care which. Which we almost did, before we pulled out to invade Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #60 January 13, 2007 QuoteDo you disagree that almost no one of any political persuasion opposed the Afghanistan campaign? Not one bit. I know most were in support of Afganistan Do you admit that a majority favored the invasion of Iraq back then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #61 January 13, 2007 QuoteFind him and arrest/kill him, I don't much care which. Which we almost did, before we pulled out to invade Iraq. Would you have ordered the shot when he was entertaining the Prince of Saudi when we knew where he was years ago? I would have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 January 13, 2007 QuoteMy point is that the decline in support has been due to the speed of communication. People hearing, seeing, reading about people who dies TODAY...Something that has never been available before. I am not debating the war. But I doubt ANY war EVER fought could remain "popular" with todays ability to communicate. I agree - there's also the MSM immediately grabbing ANYTHING detrimental to the troops or the campaign and plastering it over the front pages (of showing terrorist sniper vids on CNN), while burying anything GOOD that happens on page J65 (below the fold, of course). With cheerleaders like that on their side, the fall of Berlin would have been a defeat for the Allies...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #63 January 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you disagree that almost no one of any political persuasion opposed the Afghanistan campaign? Not one bit. I know most were in support of Afganistan Do you admit that a majority favored the invasion of Iraq back then? What does Iraq have to do with it? 9/11 was not an Iraqi supported operation, it was a Taliban supported operation. The issue raised by John Rich was comparing the response to 9/11/2001 with the response to 12/7/1941.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #64 January 13, 2007 QuoteWhat does Iraq have to do with it? Simple, my point is that both wars were popular at the start. The major media focus is on Iraq. We get reports every HOUR or less. So the poulartity is falling. The same would happen in any war with the same level of coverage. EVEN Afganistan. And the real issue is someone who grabbed a headline and thought it could be tied into making Bush look bad. That person (and the others that jumped on the bandwaggon) didn't bother to pay attention to the details of the system they were praising, and cussing at the President for not having. However, a little tiny bit or research showed that the system has plenty of drawback in a MOUT environment. Enough that the system is a bad choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
