Why doesn't the US remain united in wartime?

[Ted Striker]

I hope this is the last time we commit forces for a just cause.

Yeah right.

I'll give it about 30 years before the next f up.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Horrible. It's actually 91.37%. Everyone knows that.

If you're saying your ass has a better figure, I'll defer to your judgement in such matters.

[Ted Striker]

Not MY ass, your brother's ass.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Depends on the cause.

Afghanistan = Overwhelmingly just cause

Iraq = A string of expletives can only describe how immoral it is

What Ted said. We went to fight in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. That was a clear cut goal that everyone knew.

We went to war in Iraq under the false notion that Iraq was going to use "their WMD's in the near future" against us. No...they werent. Now, everyone's forgotten that reason and the current administration has instead switched our reasons for going to Iraq to 'spread democracy in the ME', cause the fight there is turning out to be a total nightmare.

Totally different reasons for fighting in these two countries.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well it was a bit obvious now. Especially the don't love libertry and freedom line.

I thought the title with a smiley face and "cool shades" made it a bit obvious. Yet I smiled on the liberty/freedom line, so I agree with the 7/10 after reading it.

[General Ludd]

Re: Why doesn't the US remain united in wartime?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Other democracies fought for 4 years or more without disunity undermining their war effort.

The USA hasn't left "wartime" since it got involved in WW2.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Not MY ass, your brother's ass.

Alas, passed has my brother's dear, sweet, broken, ass.

:sniff:

[Theben]

IMO the Afgan war was to put troops in place so we could build the Unocal pipline and get that Kazakh oil. Iraq provides a smokescreen for the public and keeps the wackos headed to Iraq and not Afganistan (or further points west).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I'll give it about 30 years before the next f up.

It's not even going to take that long. Once the war is over, the media will be selling it as a glorious, just, and successful endevor, and people will believe it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
When I was a kid I had to walk miles to school through all sorts of weather. My grandfather had to fell trees in Switzerland with an ax and drag them out of the forest with a team of horses to feed his mill. A hundred and 50 years ago 91.3% of all Americans lived on a farm and worked their asses off. The farther back you go, until you reach a certain point a couple of hundred years ago, the stronger and more self reliant, hard headed and obstinate people become. That's why you can have a 'hundred years war'. Those people didn't know how to quit. Also, I don't agree that it's just the US, but pretty much everywhere to some extent.

'91.3%' I plucked this outa my buttocks btw.

Actually, wars could last 100 years because:

1. Everything moved slowly. You might not know a battle was lost untila efw months later
2. Armies were generally small, covered small areas
3. Wars were between Lords, not antions. Your average farmer had no beef nor nothing to gain-they were going to be serfs and subjects one way or the other.
4. Lords get into the sort of land disputes and family feuds that last forever, since 'it was my daddy who got killed' and all that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I think "increasing disenchantment" is too directional a way of putting it. Support has oscillated. The numbers now are about what they were in March, 2004. Pretty amazing, since the torrent of bad news only let up for about a week in the meantime.

What the hell are you talking about?

Oppositon to the war is the highest it has ever been.

I dare you to find a single poll from March 2004 that had 50+% of the people saying the war was a mistake.

[DanS]

Just taking a look at what people want our troops to do now (stay in Iraq until the situation has stablized or withdraw as soon as possible), support for keeping the troops there is no less now than in March of last year.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Just taking a look at what people want our troops to do now (stay in Iraq until the situation has stablized or withdraw as soon as possible), support for keeping the troops there is no less now than in March of last year.

You said the following:

I think "increasing disenchantment" is too directional a way of putting it. Support has oscillated. The numbers now are about what they were in March, 2004. Pretty amazing, since the torrent of bad news only let up for about a week in the meantime.

People being practical enough to think the troops should stay until things are stabalized is different from them not being utterly disinchanted with the mission as a whole.

I can be angry at my leaders for something, and still realize that if we stop, things will be even more screwed up anyways.

[DanS]

% support for keeping the troops there until the situation stablizes is the important marker for purposes of this thread.

[GePap]

No it isn't.

A year ago you did not have demands for a timetable for withdrawl being made.

That number is bound to declineof the overall support for the war stays low enough for long enough.