Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Gallop: Record high says U.S. invasion a mistake

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gallop: Record high says U.S. invasion a mistake

    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2500907][B][SIZE="3"]Record high 63 percent say U.S. made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq.[/SIZE][/B]

    [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/24/record-high-63-percent-say-us-made-a-mistake-in-sending-troops-to-iraq/"](a ThinkProgress link, so HD doesn't cry)[/URL]

    A [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/106783/Opposition-Iraq-War-Reaches-New-High.aspx"]new USA Today/Gallup poll [/URL]found that 63 percent of Americans say “the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, a new high mark by one percentage point.” Gallup notes that “majority opposition to the Iraq war is basically cemented.”

    [IMG]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/gallupiraq2web.jpg[/IMG]

    Gallup adds, “The new high in Iraq war opposition is also notable because it is the highest ‘mistake’ percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States — [B]surpassing by two points the 61% who said the Vietnam War was a mistake in May 1971.” [/B](HT: Dan Froomkin)[/QUOTE]

    Rebuilding Broken-Merged Thread.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2500956]yeah and when they want to blame someone this 63% should look in the mirror.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2501033]That's incoherent. What are you trying to say?[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2501084]how is that incoherent? look at the chart.tell me what you see.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2501223]I see a nation that slowly, reluctantly came to realize that everything their leaders were warned against over and over again in early 2003 has in fact come true. Even more so than Vietnam -- this time, however, despite a sanitized, compliant media.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=pauliec;2501328]You think the media is more sanitized and compliant now than in 1971?[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=bitonti;2501515]gallop obviously wasn't asking the posters in the JI political forum

    cats around here are so right wing they think Vietnam was a good idea[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2501520]Much more. Walter Conkrite, who was probably the most trustworthy TV newsman in the nations history, essentially told the public the VN war was unwinable in 68 and the photo's, TV and nightly news showed and covered the war as the nightmare it was.

    The problem with the media today is in many ways it's so commercially driven that the public doesn't see the News as credible it's just one of many biased sources. Back in the 60's and early 70's the news, good or bad was trusted. That doesn't mean it wasn't coopted by government to some extent just that it was much more credible.


    The 60's and 70's the press was less sanitized because the public was more engaged the press was responding to the market. I don't think that was the media, I think it was the result of a draft and the impact the war had on the country which was much greater than the impact of this war on our country.

    There is a connection between coverage and interest as well as media manipulation. Society today is simply less engaged because other people are fighting the war and we are paying for it indirectly through inflation rather than directly through taxes. The Poll may indicate more people are against the war but in the 60's and 70's people in huge numbers were taking to the streets. If it wasn't for the recession, I don't think the average person in the US would care that much one way or another.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=One Eye;2501523]And 95% of that 63% don't even read the articles, they just read the headlines and form an opinion.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2501604]I see a lot of average Americans who initially trusted their President and wanted to believe he actually had good reasons to flush American lives down the toilet. I see a gradual dawning of public awareness, coupled with growing anger, that the American people were had by a a bunch of arrogant advisors who cooked up a war and completely misjudged how it would play out. I see a media finally having some balls and challenging the administration's sleight-of-hand and bullying to get at the truth. But I also see that nearly forty percent of the American public remains naive and ignorant, willing to believe anything people in authority tell them.....[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=bitonti;2501668]It is relevant because it reflects negatively on the judgment of Bush and to a lesser extent those in congress who voted for the war (inc. McCain and Hillary)[/QUOTE]

    Adding all Replies of Broken-Merged Thread.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2503336]Adding all Replies of Broken-Merged Thread.[/QUOTE]

    it's ok... the silence by the "Iraq was a good idea" crowd was palpable enough. ... thread served its purpose...

    :cool:

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?

  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,886
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?[/QUOTE]


    I hear you.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your neighbor should be offended that you compare Iraq to WW2. Bush would of attacked Iraq if he was President back then.

    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,668
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]
    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties![/QUOTE]

    Well we're not exactly fighting two major organized armies now if we lost men at that rate it would be pathetic.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?[/QUOTE]

    What a stupid analogy. What do you call all the people, like me, who knew the war was going to become a cluster**** BEFORE we invaded? Sunday Afternoon Quarterbacks? We should of killed Saddam....not invade and occupy. Seriously...don't you think we could have offed Saddam w/o spending...I don't know A MILLION DOLLARS EVER TEN F*CKING GOD DAMN MINUTES. Oh yeah...that's definitely worth it:rolleyes: and I remember Bush, Cheney and Rumsmoron saying that before we invaded. We would be greeted as liberators, they would welcome us with open arms and it would cost a $6,000,000 an hour.

    And I'm sick and tired of hearing the ridiculous "Oh well, we are there now and can't leave. Arguing that we should have never went there is pointless." No it's not. I want to hear one of those f*cking a**holes admit that they were dead wrong. That they were more wrong then if they had tried to be purposely wrong on everything they said. Say it, you retarded dumba** losers(Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and the rest of the PNAC Dumb and Dumberrer crowd).

    6 freaking million dollars an hour to kill a dictator and send a country into chaos. WTF...

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?[/QUOTE]



    It takes even less intelligence to believe that Iraq was actually behind the 911 attacks like much of the ignorant populace believed even years after the fact that we knew Saddam had nothing to do with it.....

    I also think there would have been less support for the war if the vast majority of americans actually had some stake in the fight or everyone had to make some type of sacrifice besides the true hero soldiers....It has become too easy in my view to support a pre-emptive invasion.....I would be willing to bet that if all able bodied citizens were about to have a date with the draft board or people whom have children who were of age that would be inducted to fight in Iraq, there would not have been near the early support for this pre-emptive action....
    Last edited by jetsmetsrangers; 04-26-2008 at 12:09 PM.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,139
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    [B]Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! [/B]So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?[/QUOTE]

    First of all, comparing WWII, which involved defending against a group of world powers attempting to seize half the globe does not quite equate with a dictator abusing his privileges within a single country. Saddam was a bad guy, but he was also a counterweight to Iran and not the worst player in the region. Even Bush recognized that he needed an immediate threat to justify invading another country's sovereignty. When that threat clearly turned out to be manufactured, all justification vanished.

    Secondly, you completely miss the point as to why the neo-con strategy failed. The assumption of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. was that this would be a sanitized, quick-strike war with a glowing populace, freed from their prison camp and embracing American liberators. It was Colin Powell who offered the gloomy alternative likelihood of a superficial military victory followed by an unsustainable occupation. Powell understood that a war is not over when you win on the battlefield but when a stable peace is achieved. WWI would be the prototype of a poorly structured peace that came back swiftly to haunt the world in a second conflagration, even larger and uglier. But an even more important trend has been the refinement of guerilla/terrorist warfare, so that even when the guy with the biggest weapons finishes blowing up some buildings, the enemy simply retreats into the shadows and returns to fester the wound and never let it heal. Guerilla warfare is based on the notion of retreat in the face of overt power, disruption of attempts to stabilize, and a simple wearing down of the intruder's will over time. It happened to the British in the Americas, to us in Vietnam, it happened to the Russians in Afghanistan, and it will happen to us again in Iraq. Sad but true.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469][B]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis! [/B][/QUOTE]

    When people were telling you before the war even started that it would be unsuccessful because of several reasons, and then 5 years later the war is unsuccessful for the very reasons that those critics told you it would be before the war started, then you can not use the "Monday - Morning Quarter back" analogy.

    Football analogy: A coach decides to pass on every offensive play and play the nickle defense every defensive play with no adjustment the day before the game. His assistant coach tells him its not a good idea because the other team will make the adjustments and your plays will get snuffed out. The head coach ignores the asst. He loses the game 42-10. Then the following day the asst coach tells the coach, see i told you not to do that. The HC turns around and says , easy to say that after the game. Your being a MMQB.

    Thats what you are doing.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    How can anyone support a war where the initial so called 9-11/ Bin Laden harborers "The Taliban" are now in the process of taking back Afganistan ? We made our little detour into Iraq to finish Daddys war (in ther process forming a new terror state that did not exist before) while the Real criminals the Taliban make us look like incompetent idiots.

    When you do something as serious as go to war you damn better get it right and the Monday Morning QB has every damn right to complain after all there are lives at stake this is not a football game.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Smashmouth;2504221]our little detour into Iraq to finish Daddys war[/QUOTE]

    Do you REALLY think that this was an actual motivation? I mean really, there is so much obvious and legitimate criticism to be laid at Bush's feet.....when you toss in these silly little conpiracy theory talking points, you just lose any legitimacy your argument may hold.

    Bush is bad enough, he doesn't need conspiracies to be a bad horrible President.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2503469]Yup, it takes little intelligence to be a Monday-morning quarterback...just like those who asked Roy Williams if he'd have done anything different after being down 40-12 late in the first half and finally losing by 18 to Kansas in the semis!

    Basically his answer was, "We prepared like we always do, but now I know we didn't do it well enough!"

    I have a neighbor who was in WWII and who can tell you about a lot of strategy that failed and flushed "American lives down the toilet" so was FDR a stupid goon like so many characterize Bush?

    Liberal twits like to vilify Bush's intelligence by comparing WWII to this war from a time taken to win angle! So, WWII was shorter? OK, but at the cost of 400K+ lives or .32% of our population! That same % today would be 960,000 casualties!

    I hate war too, but does anyone know for sure that if Saddam was still in power the ME would be just peachy today?[/QUOTE]

    we would be better off...that's for sure

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    well, i give asuusa credit for at least showing up with his spin, anyway....

    handled...

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wolfawitz deserves a ton of credit for Iraq. He was hell bent to go back into Iraq and for an encore he gets booted out of the World Bank, the guy is a
    CREEP!

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2504353]Do you REALLY think that this was an actual motivation? I mean really, there is so much obvious and legitimate criticism to be laid at Bush's feet.....when you toss in these silly little conpiracy theory talking points, you just lose any legitimacy your argument may hold.

    Bush is bad enough, he doesn't need conspiracies to be a bad horrible President.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2503904]And I'm sick and tired of hearing the ridiculous "Oh well, we are there now and can't leave. Arguing that we should have never went there is pointless."[/QUOTE]

    Vote Obama. Until then, seriously, pipe down about being tired of what others say. Many on this side were convinced the war was lost before it started, have never acknowledged an inch of progress, and would rather see mounting casulties than US success in Iraq.

    Until the Democratic candidate wins 70, 80, 90% (or whatever) of the popular vote to validate the endless self-righteousness I read here daily, I think it's best to step back from the MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING. 'Cause you all can't even get that right.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2504353]Do you REALLY think that this was an actual motivation? I mean really, there is so much obvious and legitimate criticism to be laid at Bush's feet.....when you toss in these silly little conpiracy theory talking points, you just lose any legitimacy your argument may hold.

    Bush is bad enough, he doesn't need conspiracies to be a bad horrible President.[/QUOTE]


    Warfish why is making refrence to Daddys war a conspiracy theory ? He had Iraq On the brain as soon as he entered Office People in his administration said so, as a matter of fact many of them did. But of course thier all liars and conspiracy nuts right ? Thats why I made the refrence to DADDYS WAR it was not meant to be taken literaly.

    Why after 9/11 did we turn our intrests OFF of the actual terrorists or so called terrorists and attack a country for an entirely different reason while the terrorists escaped into Pakistan ??? Yeah all this makes real good sense, and if you cant see that some thing is very wrong with this entire situation Im not sure what other proof you need other than whats in front of your face. We all have our theories and since we do they should not all be labeled Conspiracies. The only conspiracy is the lies the American people are told on a daily basis concerning this entire situation.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh and by the way Warfish heres a direct quote from Your current president on Saddam Hussien and the iraq War. "After all he tried to kill my Dad" It was proven there was no assassination attempt on Daddies life so who was puting out the theories then ?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Smashmouth;2509852]Oh and by the way Warfish heres a direct quote from Your current president on Saddam Hussien and the iraq War. "After all he tried to kill my Dad" It was proven there was no assassination attempt on Daddies life so who was puting out the theories then ?[/QUOTE]
    Just like it was "proven" that Saddam never had WMD or ever coveted them?

    You have your favorite websites, right? Well, it's not 2002 - time to MOVEON.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us