| To: KyrosL who wrote (148829) | 10/24/2004 10:37:22 AM | | From: Neocon | | | | I am having trouble finding the actual numbers:
U.S. Military Faults Lack of Troops in Iraq -Poll
By Susan Heavey | October 16, 2004
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of U.S. troops serving in Iraq and their families said the Bush administration did not send enough forces to Iraq and relied too heavily on the National Guard and reserve troops, a poll showed on Saturday.
Almost two-thirds of those surveyed by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, or 65 percent, said they believed President Bush "had underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq," the poll said.
But while 60 percent said part-time troops were overburdened and the number of regular troops should have been expanded, a larger majority, 74 percent, said they were opposed to reinstating the draft.
Annenberg researchers surveyed 186 troops who were serving on active duty in Iraq between February and October, including full-time, National Guard and reservist forces. If they were not available for polling, a family member was surveyed.
The results were part of a larger survey of 655 troops or their families.
Forty percent of National Guard members and reservists surveyed said they did not have enough training or supplies for their mission in Iraq, compared with 35 percent who said they were adequately prepared, the poll found.
Regular, full-time troops who served in Iraq said they were generally satisfied with their training and equipment, according to the survey.
"The military, without focusing on Bush himself, also has serious doubts about how the war has been managed," said Adam Clymer, political director of the National Annenberg Election Survey.
Despite those doubts, the military generally supports Bush and the efforts in Iraq, the poll showed. But support from those who spent time in Iraq was lower by about 10 percent.
Bush's Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, has criticized the president's handling of Iraq.
On Friday, Kerry said that he did not support a draft, but Bush's policies had stretched U.S. troops too thinly. Bush said he would not bring back the draft.
Annenberg's survey comes one day after U.S. defense officials said they were investigating a report this week that some U.S. troops refused to take part in a supply convoy in Iraq, where explosive devices have killed dozens of soldiers.
Military officials called the incident involving 19 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company "isolated," but families of the troops told a U.S. newspaper that security for the truck convoy was lacking.
The poll, conducted from Sept. 22 to Oct. 5, also found the military "overwhelmingly disagreed" with the administration's photo ban of military coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
The Annenberg Center is a research group at the University of Pennsylvania. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Neocon who wrote (148827) | 10/24/2004 10:51:16 AM | | From: Keith Feral | | | | Good points. The globalization of idealiam was adopted as a result of nuclear stalemate. The gridlock between Communism and Democracy was born out of sheer necessity. It provided the UN with an unusual amount of success because there was no opportunity for conflict between civilized nations in a neo-nuclear universe. However, when you introduce medieval tribes into the equation, the completely unthinkable act of war and the probability of nuclear escalation is no longer relevant. Now, we are back to the medieval acts of torture, kidnapping, genocide and other guerrila tactics of the Taliban, al Quaeda, al Sadr, and the rest of the terrorist networks within the Middle East.
Ironically, the lack of WMD is the most disturbing aspect of the Middle East because they totally lack a deterrent threat by which to be taken seriously. If they can't send a missile to Israel loaded with Sarin gas, how are they to be taken seriously as a superpower. It is impossible for Iraq to have any prestige in the military respect except for their random schedule of bloodshed against Western targets and anyone within a 50 ft radius.
Perhaps the Saudis are the ones encouraging all of the terrorism within Iraq so they can keep Iraq oil production to a minimum while the Saudis pump more oil at $55 a barrel. Who else has hidden agendas to keep Iraq in a state of misery? It is clearly in US interests to get things organized as quickly as possible. It is only in the interests of Iraq's OPEC enemies to keep their turmoil as violent as possible. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Keith Feral who wrote (148831) | 10/24/2004 11:12:30 AM | | From: Neocon | | | | The imbalance of firepower and training is laughable. Even among our allies, we hardly take seriously any troops other than the British. Since it is unlikely that we will militarily engage with either the Russians or the Chinese at this point, there is no military rival of the United States. Of course, one could eventually emerge, especially a a function of alliances, in the future, but it is not likely.
This leaves no alternative but the use of guerilla or terrorist strategies, and/or the pursuit of WMDs, to those who would challenge us. Since it is unlikely that WMDs will be credible as a battlefield threat given the enormous counterweight of the firepower that could be used against someone who arouses the wrath of the United States, the delivery of such devices/materials makes more sense as a clandestine activity to make it difficult to retaliate.
This is what we are confronting: the possibility of terrorism gone "ballistic", as it were.
It is not in the interest of Saudi Arabia to have terrorists running around blowing up Riyadh or kidnapping contractors. It may be in the interest of Saudi Arabia to pay off groups to keep them safely occupied elsewhere, for example, Falloujah. But even Saudi Arabia is probably beginning to appreciate that bribing them for some peace is not going to be effective in the long run, not when they can easily take out thousands at a time. There is no alternative but to cooperate with the West on proliferation and terrorist issues....... |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148816) | 10/24/2004 11:14:27 AM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | You are missing the point.
I'm not dismissing nor ignoring the protests and protesters, there are always protests. I'm discussing support from nations.
In Afghanistan, the US did get *real* international support from nation states. For an example of the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, NATO is in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.
Aside from support from a couple of individual NATO member states, Bush was unable to get the approval needed from NATO member states as a whole to go into Iraq.
My comment stands. Among allies that count, Afghanistan troubled no one - support was broad. This is NOT the case with Iraq. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: jttmab who wrote (148804) | 10/24/2004 11:17:27 AM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | |
NEW YORK (AP) - U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer's report concluding Iraq might have resumed weapons-building "after sanctions were removed," left out the crucial fact the UN Security Council had planned controls over Baghdad for years to come, UN officials said Saturday.
The Security Council, led by the United States, decreed inspections and disarmament of Iraq were to be followed by tough, open-ended monitoring.
"It's been a little disturbing," said Demetrius Perricos, chief UN weapons inspector.
"All the arguments say that when sanctions ended, Saddam Hussein would have had a free hand. By the council's [Security Council of which the US is a veto holding member] own resolutions that wasn't so."
Exactly the point I have been arguing. PLUS the President of the United States would have retained the moral authority to demand that sanctions be left, tightened, back-door-deals eliminated etc.
Bush blew it. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148834) | 10/24/2004 11:28:13 AM | | From: Nadine Carroll | | | | Michael,
You certainly did ignore the protestors; you spoke of a massive wave of world support. If you meant to say that Afghanistan had support from NATO then you should have been more specific.
The US went into Iraq with the support of England, Australia and about 30 other countries, but not France or Germany. If you think France and Germany have to lend their (largely symbolic) support to a US move for it to be "legitimate" then you're entitled to your opinion.
Personally, after the way France and Germany have been conducting their foreign policy (purely for cash, it seems), I don't think they are in any position to appoint themselves moral arbiters. How is the US supposed to pass a "global test" when the graders are taking bribes to fail us? |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: Neocon who wrote (148828) | 10/24/2004 11:44:09 AM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | Considering his career was not over, G HW Bush's asset level doesn't really matter does it? Being VP or Pres means you can count on having more assets when you leave office. Running for VP or President means that you have support from people with money, or you don't run. Its very simple.
But HW's assets were not just monetary. When you come from an old family, with old family / money ties going back generations, and also happen to be the Director of the CIA, you have more power than a "paltry" 2 million might suggest.
The original falsehood stated by another (and repeated by 'Bill' who seems to enjoy supporting other people's falsehoods) was that when Laura married into the Bush clan, the Bush family were some "commoner" family like any other in America -- trying to extend this falsehood into a negative contrast between Heinz Kerry's origins and Laura Bush's origins.
Well, there is a contrast but its not that significant. Heinz might be a food industry king, but the Bush family have in their history a strong banking and industrialism streak and G HW Bush had already been in Washington power circles for some time. He was a top contender angling to become Ford's VP nominee after Nixon departed. He was the head of the RNC at the time. He was thoroughly immersed in the circles of power in Washington.
The original poster said that George H. W. Bush was a salesman at the time Laura married George. FALSE. He was the Director of the CIA. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Neocon who wrote (148833) | 10/24/2004 11:51:47 AM | | From: Don Hurst | | | | This guy, Chauncey Gardiner, writes gibberish and you respond...figures.
I like your second paragraph though...... yup, more justification for the 21st century Maginot Line in Alaska.
Keep digging your hole.... |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
