I ask because so far on the national/international front, he’s shown himself incapable of finishing any crisis where he is not assured of victory without resorting to drastic, unprecedented measures to circumvent the situation.
Election 2000: Vote getting close? Win the presidency by lawsuit for the first time in our history.
UN resolution to attack Iraq: Can’t carry the vote? Withdraw the motion and claim, without UN backing, that you are singlehandedly enforcing the UN’s collective will.
War on Terrorism: Can’t get bin Laden? Score points with nervous Americans by going after a nation you’re fairly sure you can beat up on, even when nothing’s happened there to warrant the massive diversion of resources.
Economy: Perpetually in the toilet? Start an unprovoked war that will hopefully result in a stock market rally.
This isn’t a war for oil, as many think. It’s a war for the election of 2004. Oil is just the fringe benefit. But what happens if Gulf War II turns out to be more difficult than we thought?
Rough war: Stuck in urban warfare in Iraq? Nuke 'em, even if our troops are still there.
Popular opinion: Death toll turning the voters against you? Two republican-controlled states have already cancelled their next primary elections (which might help decide on a democratic opponent for W), citing expense. Maybe Bush will decide that democracy is security- and budget-threatening luxury we won’t be able to afford next year…
Searched for an old post of mine, and came up with this little number, which got lost in the deluge of Iraq threads back in March.
While I am no longer panicked enough to believe Bush will nuke Iraq, and am reasonably assured that he can not circumvent next year’s election, I do think the headline of the OP is more than relevant at this juncture…
Does Bush really have any idea how to get out of this?
And if Gore had been declared the winner, it would not have been because of (multiple) lawsuits? It had to do with the nature of the '00 election, not the players.
Some turth in this.
Kind of redundant to the point above, no?
Nonsense. The most likely outcome of war is for the stock market to sink. The stock market hates uncertainty.
Worse than nonsense-- utter fantasy. I’ll bet you any amount with any odds that nukes will not be used in Iraq. Wanna put your money where you mouth is?
See my response above. Substitute “democracy will not be suspended” for “nukes will not be used in Iraq”.
The Colin Doctrine was used against Iraq in 1990/91, but Afghanistan and Iraq 2003 relied much more heavily on the Revolution in Military Affairs championed by Rumsfeld and others. It relies on using smaller forces and technology to get the job done ‘on the cheap’ compared to using large numbers of forces to achieve the overwhelming force. The ‘rolling start’ in Iraq in 2003 used 3 US divisions and ~ a division of British troops at the start with additional forces deploying into the theater during the operation. Even more forces were sent into Iraq after the end of major operations to deal with security needs and guerillas. This contrasts to Iraq in 1991 when 500,000 troops had been built up in theater and were available from the start of military operations. The points of the Powell Doctrine of “fight wars you can win,” “secure public support,” and “have a plan for getting out,” are also much clear in 2003 than they were in 1991.
You are living in a fantasy world. Where do you get this stuff?? Sometimes its very hard to take the left wing/anti-war crowd seriously when they pull garbage like this out of their ass.
As to the question in the title of the OP…who knows? I rate the chances of the US pulling this off with something resembling peace and prosperity for Iraq in the next 5 years as something less than 50/50 atm.
From scotandrsn
I’d ask for a cite for this, or something that backs up your assertion that the economy has rebounded solely (or even partly) from our Afghanistan/Iraq adventure…but its obvious you are simply ranting and pulling this stuff out of the air.
As to the death toll…DO you have anything to back up the assertion that the death toll is what has turned voters against Bush? My feeling is that the death toll hasn’t really effected his standings per se…but that a combination of other things is whats bringing him down atm.
Election 2000: Was decided primarily by the Electoral College, a firmament to preventing Metropolis heatseeking carpetbaggers (Albert Gore) from sweeping elections and leaving Ma and Pa farmer out to dry.
UN: The UN is an abhorrent mass of beaurocrats who love nothing more than to watch nations defy sanctions it imposed. When pressed, small left leaning nations throw votes towards evil isolationism. It’s pathetic.
War on Terrorism. The US didn’t start this war, terrorists the supporters of terrorists did. Say what you will, but the only bomber not caught in the original WTC bombings fled to Iraq. Afganistan harbored training camps and a despotic regime devoted to hate and death.
Economy: Long wars help economies, but there tend to be dramatic recessions after them. Take a look at any all out war in US history. In the modern age short wars create turmoil and hurt the economy. The economy had been in a spin since 2000 and even in 1998 if you discount tech stocks.
War for election: You sir are ignorant. Apparently you forgot about the deaths of 3000 Americans. You forgot about bodies of Kurdish civilians scattered across Northern Iraq. You forgot about the dirty wars fought with the boiled bodies of Iranians. You forgot about the lost fingers and heads of homosexual prisoners. You sir are ignorant.
Nuclear War: You sir ARE ignornant.
Popular Opinion: President Bush has a 61% approval rating currently. Enough said.
You need to go get your head out of the hole it’s in. Enough said.
Actually, too much said. While I find it incredibly amusing that a person accusing somebody else of being ignorant can’t even spell the word correctly, it is still against the rules to engage in such direct personal attacks and I do not expect to see them from you in the future.
sheesh, war helps the economy. lemme learn you something. Stock markets hate uncertainty, that’s why they hated the waiting. As soon as war started and could see it would be victorious, up went the markets. As soon as the markets could see that oil supplies would be guaranteed, up went the markets. Remember gulf war 1, opening day of the war was matched with the opening rally of the Dow.
don’t make the mistake about uncertainty and war, because soon as it starts and is overwhelming, then the uncertainty is gone.
Define “victorious” in this context. What I see is “quagmire.”
And as to the election… well… let’s just say that I would not at all be surprised to see a major act of terrorism or two happen on US soil fairly close to the election. Be good for Bush, it would.
Not that I’m saying he’d have the CIA do it or something – I’d like to think he’s saner and more moral than THAT – but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some gang of Middle Eastern loonies under surveillance were “allowed” to pull a fast one, if Bush thought it would help the Republicans’ chances…
But for this war to have been “good for the market”, said market would have to go up more after the war started than it declined in the year leading up to the war, my friend. And, as you can see, this hasn’t even come close to happening yet. Of course there’s no way to assign a specific cause to any stock market trend, but your thesis really doesn’t make sense. Peace creates wealth, war destroys wealth. The latter is simply not good for the economy unless it removes a significant roadblock to peace.
Not to mention the “securing of public support.” While I don’t doubt that most Americans support the troops themselves, I don’t believe that the general idea of war in Iraq was supported enough to call it “secured.”
This is the War on Terra. It neither has nor needs a definite (or defineable) “end”.
Bush can declare victory (Afghanistan) and strut away. If such ‘Mission Accomplished’ parades of lies (Iraq) come back to haunt him and his cohorts - he never said the war on terra was over.
Whatever just happened in Sammara (Iraq) cannot be called ‘major combat’ because that ended when Bunnypants strutted across the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. That was major combat against Iraqis! Now we’re fighting terrorists, so they don’t fly to your Red State and blow up a Nascar track.
So Major Combat, Phase 1 is over in Iraq. Phase 2 - the long hard slog, is about to begin the next time dozens of Abrams Tanks blow a neighbourhood to pieces.
There’s lots more numbers after 2. Bush’s War(s) will never end, yet they will always end in victory.
That is, if Bush doesn’t simply nuke the Iraqi’s (while our troops are there) for the fun of it, while simultaneously either having the CIA fake another major terrorist attack killing thousands more US civilians (CITIZENS) or simply allow some ME terrorist group to do the dirty work while standing back and cheering them on, all for his evil agenda…right? All the while, the fight will simply go on and on for ever in Iraq, with no hope ever ever ever of improvement…until the UN comes in on their shinning white horse and saves the day.
:rolleyes:
Simply another Bush/US bashing foam fest. Instead of over the top retoric, why can’t anyone discuss this subject reasonably. Forget the majority of the foam from the OP and actually discuss the reality…is it possible for the US to finish successfully in Iraq? What would they need to do? What are they doing wrong? What (if anything) are they doing right? By what standard will we know that things are getting better? How will we know when we are ‘done’?
Is it even possible for the left wing crowd and the right wing crowd to discuss this stuff rationally, and if not, whats the point of this board?
Well is it possibly helping Bush ? Certainly not... so it has only the potential to hurt his ratings. How much it hurts is questionable... but it can only hurt.
The death toll is one of those multi-facited things, IMO RM. I think the general public in the US actually is willing to put up with casualties without a negative effect to any given administration…even relatively high casualties…IF, and here’s the kicker, they think that the cause is a good one, or even if they are neutral about it. Certainly the tide has shifted on the Iraq issue (from very pro to a more cautious pro/neutral stance…IMO again), with more and more people questioning it…but I don’t think its shifted enough (with respect to the GENERAL public) that the casualties are a serious detriment to Bush…yet.
If things continue to shift, and public opinion on the Iraq thing goes to the negative, THEN the casualties might start having an effect…sort of a cumulative effect, when coupled with all the other things (the war itself, the economy, various other unpopular policies Bush has done, the whole back and forth steel tarrifs thing, etc).
To use an example I think is only marginally relevant, look at Vietnam. Certainly the WAR was unpopular, especially towards the end. However, it wasn’t the CASUALTIES that had people all pissed off, not directly anyway, but a combination of other factors that ignited public dis-approval and mass protest.