US support for the war in Iraq collapsing

annab

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Points
6
US support for the war in Iraq collapsing, poll shows


MOST Americans no longer believe the war in Iraq has made their country safer, and more than 60pc of the country believes the military is bogged down in a conflict that was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new opinion poll offering only bad news to the Bush administration.

The poll for 'The Washington Post' and ABC News, published yesterday, was the first survey in which a majority of Americans rejected the White House's argument that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was good for domestic security.

The poll also suggested that opinions were almost exactly evenly divided between those with a positive impression of President Bush's 'war on terror' and those who viewed it negatively.

The findings were particularly stunning, since security was among the leading issues on which Mr Bush won re-election last November. At that time, his approval ratings on anti-terrorism policy were roughly 60-40.

The poll also reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the second Bush administration. Almost every issue on which the White House has focused in recent months - social security reform, salvaging its most extreme judicial nominations, agitating to keep the comatose Terri Schiavo alive against the wishes of her husband - has proved unpopular. If Mr Bush's ratings on the terrorism question have fallen, it is in part because he has barely mentioned the topic.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon's recruiting crisis has deepened with new figures showing that the US Army has failed to meet its target for the fourth consecutive month.

The sense of drift in Iraq is underlined by the absence of a US ambassador in Baghdad for almost six months. The Senate is holding confirmation hearings for Zalmay Khalilzad, who is to replace John Negroponte, who became intelligence czar. The Army's admission that it missed its recruiting target for May by 25pc is even worse than it seems. Weeks earlier, army chiefs revised their May target from 8,000 troops to 6,700. They attracted just over 5,000 recruits; 63pc of their original goal.

The Army is now 8,300 soldiers behind where it hoped to be by this time of the year. Its annual target is to send 80,000 recruits a year to boot camp. US officials said that they hoped to make up the number in the summer when recruiting was traditionally easier, but there is anxiety about the effect of Iraq on their ability to attract the next generation of soldiers. (© Independent News Service)

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=30&si=1412595&issue_id=12589
 
Polls are basically useless propaganda used by both sides in any issue. So I am sure you could find/do enough polls to support just about anything. Polls mean jack-diddley-squat.

The Rummy/Cheney/Bush trio has stuck there foot in it big time. Not surprising. The ones left holding the bag are families of soldiers and national guardsmen who don't get much of out the deal except for a body bag with their son in it. A bit sad.

And then there are thousands of Iraqi's that are simply caught in the middle. We know what happens there... when Iraq is no longer strategically important or whatever puppet they put in place takes the weapons that the current administration is selling him and decides to turn on the U.S. - then it'll be war all over again. Oh wait... Deja vu... that's what's happened in the first place.

It's not surprising that they can't get enough new soliders. For the first time in ages the Marines didn't make their recruitment quota's. That's something you don't normaly see with the USMC.

The imposition of democracy is basically the new terrorism.

I support the soldiers who are there - I wish them the best of luck and hope for a speedy return to their families. I think however it's sad that they had to end up in such a quagmire with no clear objective in sight... other than the bank accounts of those up on the hill.
 
I think more and more people are realizing two things:

1. We're not getting much out of this except for dead soldiers. And no one wants to join the military just to risk getting shot and sent home in a body bag. And if the Marines haven't met their quotas, that says something.

2. The Iraqis had democracy forced on them and those who did it have no clear plan of exit. Iraq's infastructure is practically non-existant. Soldiers and civilians are getting killed daily. We're spending billions of dollars on a war that whas no real purpose at this point, and no real end in sight. With all the problems we have domestically, this is becoming a real waste of manpower and cash. I think that's the part most shocking for us. All this $$ spent, and nothing to show for it.
 
Oh sure theres lots to show for it. The propogandists who say that these men/women died as heros, though I doubt the parents really care what you call their lost children. Flag sales are up. Hmmmmm That might it I think. No wait, my taxes went up last year. Military budget is up and cuts in the educational budget are up, cost of fuel is WAAAAAY up.....

Lets see, Granpa Bush thinks Jeb would make a good president, that'd be something eh? Nothing like a little fascism to whip a country into shape.

oh yea, go and read some more about the draft being re-instated all you youngin's out there. I'm on my local draft board and we have a special meeting called for on June 27th, what could it be?????? I'll keep you all posted.....
 
I think many or most Iraqis did want change for the good, although it will take quite a while for it to settle. Eventually things will be better. Just dont expect thing to be instant.

It should also be noted that the Iraqis that voted did so through choice. They may not have had a choice in Saddams removal, but they didn't dispute it in the polls.

I also find it disgusting that Bush spends the money he did on the war, then refuses to give more than 300 Million or so to the African aid.
 
Oh yeah that was great, his reason being that it didn't 'fit in with his budget profile'. Well sorry if saving thousands of lives doesn't fit in your 'budget profile', but you could at least act like you give a damn!
 
Yep, obviously genocide in Africa is no justification for intervention, but just because a tinpot dictator was a "bad man", the world is supposed to forgive the Bush/Blair/Howard administrations for lying to the public in order to gain control of prime real estate.


The recruiting crisis makes me sad. True, some people join the army merely because of national pride and an innate drive to protect their country, but in reality most of the ones who are actually in the line of fire come from lower-middle-class backgrounds and join in order to get training, wages and education that they otherwise wouldn't have access to (a bit like the NBA).

So if the Army has gone from being a viable career development prospect to a life-threatening role as a political soccer ball, I can see why people are starting to turn away.
 
lol, half of America now knows what the rest of us had figured out 2 years ago.
 
I was originally in favour of it. But the more I learnt and reading Michael Moores book I was convinced otherwise. Maybe something did need to be done in Iraq, but so does many countries and at what cost? How can you justify the loss of so many lives to gain what But the real agenda is often different, then you realise how propaganda and the media is used to convince the population of what they want them to believe purely to gain enough support to carry out whatever plan they have. Then soilders are used as pawns, losing thousands of lives, many thousands on both sides to fullfill their "obective".

But thats just my opinion
 
yeah, we in britain are so pleased we helped make the middle east a 'safer' place

cheers mr. blair, get your hand down your pants, find your balls and start standing up to the bush administration instead of rolling over and letting the pompous ass tickle your belly!!!
 
We gained higher fuel prices. What, that's not important to you?

Obvious sarcasm there. We lost in many separate ways. I'm at a loss to identify one way we gained.

Okay, enough complaining. Back to work ...
 
Great to hear that Micheal Moore actually can do some good, I'm always too quick to dismiss him as preaching to the converted.

What I really wanna know about the war is if it was so important to get Saddam out of power why did we

a) effectively destroy what Iraqi resistance there was to Saddam during the first Gulf War (by bombing the begeezus out of them)

b) not just send the CIA into assasinate him, which is what the US does in Latin America all the time

c) put him into power in the first place!?!

and it should be noted that despite Saddam's incredible evilness, women had it better in Saddam's Iraq than almost any other Middle Eastern country (as he is very secular)

And I still wanna know how a bunch of Saudi Arabian terrorists have anything to do with Iraq. It's like blaming Spain for something Sweden did.
 
holyheadjch



Obviously you didn't have it figured out as well as you thought - Blair is still playing lap dog to crap US foreign policy. lol.
 
Ha Ha! Touche! Is it better to be in a country that elected a moron, or a country that elected a smart man that goes along with whatever the moron says?
 
I think that until the smart man and the moron are out of office, both countries are up you-know-what creek without the paddle.
 
I am an unabashed Liberal/Libertarian. I support personal rights, good government, social programs, and other stuff like that. I was a student of International Studies and Philosophy in college, and I thought about foreign policy a lot.

Even though I didn't agree with the "shrub" foreign policy (that's a cute name, btw) I understood it at many different levels. It made sense from a certain point of view. But that doesn't justify going about the war in the way we did.

Perhaps the best thing said so far is the quote in Kwaj's signature: "The greatest crime since WWII has been american foreign policy". -- Former Sect. of State Ramsey Clark"

There has been no consistancy in American foreign policy, both between administrations and within administrations. Bush goes to war in 8 months after Clinton spent 8 years trying for peace, Bush attacks Iraq but won't get after Korea (thank God). Even beyond military policy, everything is a mess- has anyone here looked carefully at our food subsidy program here in the US? That may be the single greatest factor contributing to the continued poverty of much of Africa.

I have to stop typing now or this will become too ridiculous to read
[/rant]
 
Say what??? Liberal and Libertarian are mutually inconsistent. Personal rights and social programs are mutually inconsistent. "Good govt" as defined by Libertarians is inconsistent with social programs.



I'd like to hear your explanation. I'm not up on the food subsidy program, but I can't think of any possible way the USA can take any blame for the poverty "in much of Africa." (And no, I'm not coming at this as a supporter of American foreign policy. My views on our current foreign policy are well known.)
 
out of the 113 insurgents my company killed or captured in an 8 month period, one was iraqi! why are we still in iraq? the great iraqi people got the free vote. awsome, lets roll outa here and bring our british and aussie brothers with us!!!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top