Even War Supporters Begin to Say It's Not Worth It

[SouthLink02 8]

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/trib004.html

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- As surely as sweet-corn stands and rolling farmland give way to the boxlike tract housing of new suburbs here, President Bush is losing ground on the battlefield of public opinion when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Even among Republicans who cheered the invasion of Iraq two years ago, and some who supported Bush's re-election and his exhortation to "stay the course," the ongoing loss of American life without a clear course for withdrawal is taking a toll.

Growing opposition to the conflict, as well as a diminishing sense that it is making Americans safer from terrorism at home, is reflected in an array of recent opinion polls.

It also resounds in a series of interviews with voters from the blossoming suburbs and withering steel-mill warrens outside Pittsburgh to the old cotton-mill country and military-minded precincts of South Carolina. Frustration and perplexity are voiced from Southern California to Terre Haute, Ind.

"Two or three years ago, when everything started, I thought it was a good idea," said Laura French, a Republican from Evan City, Pa. "But now I think enough is enough. It's time to come home."

It is not only the growing death toll that has eroded American support for the war, according to those interviewed, but also the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And it's the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"A couple of years ago, I thought the invasion of Iraq was justified," said Victor Diaz, a 30-year-old consultant in Los Angeles. "I believed the reports that stated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and figured it would only be a matter of time before they were found."

Growing doubts could make it difficult for Bush to maintain support for a continuing presence of nearly 140,000 troops.

[DKW 86 7,440]

As soon as feasible, Bring them home.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Left wing Media discovered back in the Vietnam war that showing a daily death report of US Soldiers, along w/ photos and stories with widows and family members mourning their loss will go a long way in changing the hearts and minds of the public. Had such things gone on during WW2, we'd all be speaking German now.

We're going to stay and finish the job. To cut and run would be the most horrific disservice to those who gave their lives.

[Piglet 0]

The Left wing Media discovered back in the Vietnam war that showing a daily death report of US Soldiers, along w/ photos and stories with widows and family members mourning their loss will go a long way in changing the hearts and minds of the public. Had such  things gone on during WW2, we'd all be speaking German now.

174303[/snapback]

Had such things gone on during the American Revolution, Bush would be speaking English now.

[Tigermike 3,053]

The Left wing Media discovered back in the Vietnam war that showing a daily death report of US Soldiers, along w/ photos and stories with widows and family members mourning their loss will go a long way in changing the hearts and minds of the public. Had such  things gone on during WW2, we'd all be speaking German now.

174303[/snapback]

Had such things gone on during the American Revolution, Bush would be speaking English now.

174365[/snapback]

Yep and you would be paying homage to the Queen.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Had such things gone on during the American Revolution, Bush would be speaking English now.

We are two nations divided by a common language - Winston Churchill

[WarTim 3,457]

The Left wing Media discovered back in the Vietnam war that showing a daily death report of US Soldiers, along w/ photos and stories with widows and family members mourning their loss will go a long way in changing the hearts and minds of the public. Had such  things gone on during WW2, we'd all be speaking German now.

We're going to stay and finish the job. To cut and run would be the most horrific disservice to those who gave their lives.

174303[/snapback]

Well said Raptor. WAR IS HELL. The only purpose of US Armed forces should be to kill people and blow up their stuff. The resolve of the enemy is not fading. The resolve of the USA had better not either. In a prefect world, there would be no need of War. We do not live in a perfect world. Iraq is only the first front in the battle against terrorism. There is much more to come and , sadly, many more American soldiers will die serving their Country. They are fighting the battle on foriegn soil to prevent a fight on US soil. I salute them and those who boldly lead them in spite of those that cast stones without a clue.

[aucorner 0]

It is unbelievable how short the attention span in this country is these days......the British are prepared for a thousand years of war to eradicate terror, much like the crusades!

Where is our resolve, we were once focused on world economic domination, I fear that now the Chinese has absorbed our resolve for world domination!

[CCTAU 3,344]

As son as another terroist attack happens, every liberal in this country will be ready to fight anywhere, anytime. Then 3 months later they'll forget and be ready to sell our allies and this country to the highest bidder.

DO not forget. They should show people jumping from those towers every day on every newscast. Lest we forget.

[quietfan 233]

It is unbelievable how short the attention span in this country is these days......the British are prepared for a thousand years of war to eradicate terror, much like the crusades!

Where is our resolve, we were once focused on world economic domination, I fear that now the Chinese has absorbed our resolve for world domination!

174446[/snapback]

Well, actually, the Crusades only lasted about 200 years, had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and were ultimately a big failure. Under the fascade of "Christianity" they were simply a convenient way for the Pope to increase his political power while reducing warfare inside Europe by deflecting many of the armed forces of Europe to the Middle East. For many of the Crusaders themselves, it was a way for the younger sons of nobility to carve out fiefdoms of their own in Palestine since only the eldest son inherited the family estate in Europe.

Of course, framing our goals in terms like "crusades" and "world domination" is sure to improve our image in the region and slow the recruiting efforts of the terrorists...

[TexasTiger 13,016]

As son as another terroist attack happens, every liberal in this country will be ready to fight anywhere, anytime. Then 3 months later they'll forget and be ready to sell our allies and this country to the highest bidder.

DO not forget. They should show people jumping from those towers every day on every newscast. Lest we forget.

174456[/snapback]

Lest we forget what? That Iraq had nothing to do with it?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

As son as another terroist attack happens, every liberal in this country will be ready to fight anywhere, anytime. Then 3 months later they'll forget and be ready to sell our allies and this country to the highest bidder.

DO not forget. They should show people jumping from those towers every day on every newscast. Lest we forget.

174456[/snapback]

Lest we forget what? That Iraq had nothing to do with it?

174470[/snapback]

You blind libs......I'm sorry, you're a self proclaimed "fiscal conservative" now......are full of crap. The proof of Saddam's involvement is out there for anyone willing to open their eyes to see.

[aucorner 0]

It is unbelievable how short the attention span in this country is these days......the British are prepared for a thousand years of war to eradicate terror, much like the crusades!

Where is our resolve, we were once focused on world economic domination, I fear that now the Chinese has absorbed our resolve for world domination!

174446[/snapback]

Well, actually, the Crusades only lasted about 200 years, had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and were ultimately a big failure. Under the fascade of "Christianity" they were simply a convenient way for the Pope to increase his political power while reducing warfare inside Europe by deflecting many of the armed forces of Europe to the Middle East. For many of the Crusaders themselves, it was a way for the younger sons of nobility to carve out fiefdoms of their own in Palestine since only the eldest son inherited the family estate in Europe.

Of course, framing our goals in terms like "crusades" and "world domination" is sure to improve our image in the region and slow the recruiting efforts of the terrorists...

174468[/snapback]

you are right............let's let our country slip. heck, let us fall to number 100 in the world. I don't want to be the best at anything. Let us reward mediocrity! Why not adopt communism! and by all means, let us not be clear as to what our goals are and how we frame them

and by the way....the crusades may have been fought by christians but it was all about pushing back the barbarism that is Islam and self preservation. As far as fiefdoms that you speak of....appreciate your trying to impress with your intellect but is a moot point given the fact that in Islam, god needs more land

Another fact for you. 77 current conflicts in the world today.......75 of them involve the Muslim system. I guess that christians and our current administration are responsible for this

[Piglet 0]

you are right............let's let our country slip.  heck, let us fall to number 100 in the world.  I don't want to be the best at anything.  Let us reward mediocrity!  Why not adopt communism!  and by all means, let us not be clear as to what our goals are and how we frame them

174494[/snapback]

I try to be clear about what our goals are, but the Bushies keep changing them.

Are we trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Middle East, or are we trying to stomp them into submission? You can't do both at once.

[CCTAU 3,344]

you are right............let's let our country slip.  heck, let us fall to number 100 in the world.  I don't want to be the best at anything.  Let us reward mediocrity!  Why not adopt communism!  and by all means, let us not be clear as to what our goals are and how we frame them

174494[/snapback]

I try to be clear about what our goals are, but the Bushies keep changing them.

Are we trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Middle East, or are we trying to stomp them into submission? You can't do both at once.

174556[/snapback]

We want to do both. The problem is that its becoming increasingly harder to distiguish between a terrorist and a muslim. The fact that the islamic world will not denounce terrorism creates an attitude where we come to think of all muslims as terrorists. We want to win the harts and minds of those individuals who want freedom and aren't so jaded by their terroristic religion that they can't embrace freedom. We want to show that we are not there to conquer, although we could if we were imperialistic, but to give them the freedom to live without persecution. And to also let them know that they answer to a larger population of the world's countries. If they feel they only answer to allah, then maybe they need to have a face-to-face with him and their 72 Virgins. And from a terrorist standpoint, it is our job to arrange that meeting.

[Piglet 0]

I try to be clear about what our goals are, but the Bushies keep changing them.

Are we trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Middle East, or are we trying to stomp them into submission?  You can't do both at once.

174556[/snapback]

We want to do both. The problem is that its becoming increasingly harder to distiguish between a terrorist and a muslim. The fact that the islamic world will not denounce terrorism creates an attitude where we come to think of all muslims as terrorists. We want to win the harts and minds of those individuals who want freedom and aren't so jaded by their terroristic religion that they can't embrace freedom. We want to show that we are not there to conquer, although we could if we were imperialistic, but to give them the freedom to live without persecution. And to also let them know that they answer to a larger population of the world's countries. If they feel they only answer to allah, then maybe they need to have a face-to-face with him and their 72 Virgins. And from a terrorist standpoint, it is our job to arrange that meeting.

175702[/snapback]

So does that mean our goal is to WANT to do all that, or to actually DO it?

If they're all terrorists and terrorist-lovers, then we bloody well ARE there to conquer. And wishing it were different is useless. If they're NOT all terrorists, we gotta resort to diplomacy. Which is it gonna be? It seems to me the fact that the Administration can't make up its mind on that point is a very serious problem, and is endangering our troops. And that we're gonna be there a long, long time if the Administration doesn't pick one of those two inconsistent goals and stick to it.

It also seems to me that a nation ruled by fundamentalist Shia clerics with a religious agenda is gonna be more likely to approve terrorism against the west than even a secular dictatorship like Saddam's, the agenda of which was pretty much "whatever's good for Saddam, we do that". In other words, the Iraqi government we created is, in the long run, much worse than what we took out, which is saying a lot.

It's hard to see how I'm some kind of lefty nut just for seeing it that way.