http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20020805/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_9 sen. joseph biden says that after hearings last week there is no doubt in his mind that there will be war with iraq. so. my question is...what will the reaction in the united states be to this situation if indeed biden is correct and war will happen?
70-80% of Americans are all for war against Iraq, only about 10% are outright against it (the rest are undecided). So it would be received very well. Alex
those 70-80% of the US population are just sheep. They don't want to be bothered to think for themselves and rely on the government and the media to do the thinking for us. It's scary that people are for a war that will do us no good and is not necessary at this time.
The important thing about sheep is that they can be turned very easily. If the war starts going badly, Bush the Younger will be in big trouble.
According to the Gallup Poll conducted June 17-19, the numbers are 59% in favor, 34% opposed, 7% undecided. These numbers are down from 74% in favor, 20% opposed on November 26-27 and are more in line with the pre-9/11 totals.
Maybe it would be better to say that 50% of Americans are all for war. (supposingly only because they want to get rid of some steam) Whether this war is a reasonable and strategic idea will be decided by the UN soon. If yes, all countries will participate, if no the US will do it by themselves and probably call everyone else a coward and a "talk too much but do to little" or maybe even a "if you are not with us you are with them"! Just one thing that has to be said to some of those 60% voting for a war. This ground operation is no comparison to that tank and air war from Desert-storm. This time you would have to do infiltration instead of penetration. This could in fact cost 40'000 casualties. If you are willing to pay the price, well..... (but the thing is basically already decided, even little germany had already sent chemical protection tanks to Saudi Arabia a few months ago for training with the US-army)
While I don't support a war against Iraq for the near future, I think it would be safe to say that we would have FAR less than 40,000 casualties. Hussein's military is crap and wouldn't pose a credible threat against us, especially in the desert where we would simply roll over them. Our main problem would be in the mountainous regions and that's it.
Keep in mind a few things about war with iraq - 1. The last time we fought, Saddam didn't use biological weapons because it was him against the world essentially. Now whats going to stop him? 2. We're all alone on this one. I dont see how W would want to do this, it'll only make more enemies. 3. Lets keep in mind what happened in all the other countries we ousted leaders and set up new governments in....nicaragua, afghanistan, panama, etc...anyone who's put into place, no matter how terrible, will be fine with the white house because he's "not saddam" for once i'm happy to talk to people who share my views about not fighting this war.
Mountains, which mountains, this is not Afghanistan. Now if you would know a little about miltary you would know that a second war will be an INFILTRATION even a OCCUPATION, which means facing an army of 400'000 soldiers with a realtively stable budget from illegal oil trading. Secondly you will have to send your GI's on the ground (probably around 250000) Last time you killed an invador not a defendor and you could kill him while retreating so 100'000 Iraqi casualties vs 150 american casualties was possible. But this time United States would probably have to undertake essentially alone (besides the risk of triggering terrorist attacks against American or allied targets) the major cause of KIA (killed in Action) is the potential for intense urban combat and Iraqi use of chemical and biological agents; and the likely need for a long-term American military presence in Iraq to avoid regional destabilization. 40'000 is a worst case scenario, but even if you think about Vietnam a ratio of killing ten for one would still end up in 40'000 black plastic bags returning to the US. I am not agains the war, but people stop watching you silly holywood productions, this would be a real war!
I guess I'm the only one somewhat bothered by Biden and Congress' approach to this -- that they want to be "advised" before Bush goes to war. I thought some degree of consultation and perhaps even consent from the House and Senate was required before a war actually is declared and U.S. troops deployed for combat. I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that both the War Powers Act and the articles in the US Constituion that delegate powers to the President, House, Senate, etc. raise questions about whether Bush and a few others who agree with him can just decide to go to war without first getting at least Congress "advice" about what to do, not to mention consent. Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" reminded Biden that he voted against authorizing Bush I the authority to go to war in Desert Storm in 1991. Biden said his reason for voting that way -- Bush hadn't made the case convincingly to him. At least 11 years ago the Congress went through the process of giving us a vote about whether or not to give the President authorization to use force -- you know, some semblance of the appearance of democratic institutions at work. Now it's "well, Mr. President, just tell us about what you're going to do before you do it." Hardly what I'd call representative government in any way, shape, or form. And please somebody riddle me this -- what is the justification for going to war? That Saddam has nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, that he will get them, that he will use them against us because he hates us, etc.? What is the rationale for war -- Saddam is a bad man or Saddam is a clear, unambiguous threat?
> 1. The last time we fought, Saddam didn't use > biological weapons because it was him against > the world essentially. Now whats going to stop > him? For same reason he really did not use chemical weapons last time - we would massivly retaliate. Besides, chemical weapons are really lame against armies. You only need 1919 level technology in order to maintain military function. > 2. We're all alone on this one. I dont see how W > would want to do this, it'll only make more > enemies. I think when Bush the Younger's term is up, we will be thanking him for the New World Disorder. This is going to be expensive, and we will foot all the bill this time. I understand he wants to create an empire instead of being just another nation in the world, but I think he is doing an incredibly poor job of it.
The US public generally likes war, especially when the Defense Dept. releases those on-board tapes of missiles hitting somebody's front door from 25 miles away. Those play really well on CNN and Fox News. Yeah, we hear about some brown people dying, but the technology that we use to do it is cool, ain't it? But if they pre-empt Friends or Monday Night Football for some stupid Presidential news conference talking about upholding the American way of life or some dumb crap like that, watch out. Basically we're in favor of anything that we can win as long as it doesn't inconvenience us.
Be assured that this war would mean more than a little inconvenience. Wonder what you would say if you would be a recruit. Jumping out of a chopper right into the desert the first thing that comes to your mind will be: oh damm, I got a good gun and NV gogles but that defientely is his terirtory we gonna fight on not mine!
Britain's view on any war The public here are more hesitant about whether we should join Bush, who seems hell-bent on getting rid of Saddam. The main thing is that we have not seen more than rumours that he's making or developing lots of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, and that our cynical nature makes us believe that Dubya's only really doing this because of his need to finish what his daddy couldn't finish. Despite these misgivings, Blair seems to want to go headlong into the war, without recalling parliament (therefore there will be no debate or vote on the issue). It seems that the will of the people he is supposed to represent is a long second to following Dubya's lead whatever the action (sorry if that sounded a bit too much like George Michael). I just hope that the strategists have thought about what happens after the war, otherwise it may become messy like Vietnam.
I hope you don't think war is funny. Anyway, many of you know what happened in Somalia even with our Rangers, best helicopter pilots and the "secret" Delta force. Yea, we high talied it out of there after what, 18 US soldiers dead? Sure, up to 1,000 drugged Somalis were said to have died, including women and children...who were fighting against the troops. Now, Somalia is still a hell hole, Aidid's son, an ex-Marine for the USA, is the new leader after his father died, and drugs, starvation and the world's largest terrorist and arms black market exists. Maybe Clinton could be to balme but the UN had a hand and he did get this mess from Bush, Sr. Technology is one thing, but in urban combat where cheap rocket granades and a seemingly endless supply of small arms can and will make things difficult, at best. These were the USA's best, best trained, type A soldiers who believed the hype. They encounter and mistook the enemy's willingness to die, or be so drugged that they didn't care and what does the US soldier say after the fact? Well, we were so confident. This was NOT like in training. The biggest difference was all the screaming. Please, make the screaming stop! The only thing in our favor or at least the thing I don't understand is how Saddam wants(ed) to make this some holy war. Why else would he send scuds to Israel? His govt being secular and cracking down on fundamentalists, he then tries to make this some sort of jihad. I wouldn't believe a word that Iraqi defector has to say. He simply wants to go back after some war and be the new leader. I say, allow the CIA to target Saddam and kill him, James Bond style. I have a sinking feeling that our intelligence is lacking. I wouldn't mind paying $5 a gallon for gas. Bottled water is still more expensive.
Oh come on, why is this funny. I contrast to you we got obligatory military service here. I may not be american (I apologise for not having served in the US army) but there is a certain knowledge that comes along with serving. Or do you think watching Blackhawk Down and a Magnum in your pants makes you more competent. So dont just tell me what not to do, proof me wrong! But in order to do that you gonna spend a night with google I guess!
> The only thing in our favor or at least the thing I > don't understand is how Saddam wants(ed) to > make this some holy war. Why else would he > send scuds to Israel? His govt being secular and > cracking down on fundamentalists, he then tries > to make this some sort of jihad. If there is a jihad, then the other muslim nations would (hopefully) join on his side. It is purely a pragmatic decision. Saddam believes in god as much as he believes in Santa Clause. > I say, allow the CIA to target Saddam and kill > him, James Bond style. It has already been revealed by our government that we have been trying to do this. Saddam has survived a dozen attempts on his life. Besides, this is not a good way to take over the nation - we have no control over who takes over after Saddam, and it would certainly be someone with Saddam's vision of Iraq, not the mythical "pro-US military strong man". > I wouldn't mind paying $5 a gallon for gas. > Bottled water is still more expensive. Bottled water doesn't run our economy. We went into recession when gas went to $2.
I don't see your data. The New York Times did a long article about Republicans in Scottsdale, Arizona, one of the major knee-jerk Bush supporting areas. They were pretty solidly pro-Bush, but VERY anti wsr agasint Iraq.
There must not be a war against Iraq Prophecies of Nostradamus, the Third Antichrist at the time of a Comet If you spell Mabus backwards, it is Sudam = Saddam. He is the anti-Christ. After he dies, all hell breaks lose.
Re: There must not be a war against Iraq Uhhh...I hate to be the one to break the fantasy of a Nostradamus prophecy, but, uhhh....Mabus spelled backward is Subam, not Sudam, and certainly not Saddam. But, come to think of it, Mabus has five letters just like Hitler and...oh wait, Hitler has six letters, damn.
It was Clinton's Defense Secretary who nixed the support that was requested by the Rangers and Delta. It was Clinton's Defense Secretary who wanted the raid to occur in daylight. The Rangers and Delta prefer the night. I'd say that the Nightstalkers did a damn fine job, and so did the Rangers and Delta. The mishap in Somalia is just another reason why the politicians back home should not dictate military procedures. I have this unsettling feeling that if we invade Iraq we will have politicians in Washington try to run the damn thing and get more of our boys killed for no reason.
I saw a poll on either CNN or MSNBC about 3 weeks ago and the numbers were pretty close to that--don't have the link unfortunately, so you'll have to take my word for it. The Gallup Poll Godot quoted said about 60% support, so how about split the difference and say 65-70%. Still very strong support for the war (and it will likely go up on the anniversary of 9-11). "Mabus" spelled backwards is only "Sudam" if you write like a 13-year-old girl...mUbAs. And what comet is present that would make Nostradamus' prophecies come true?? Alex