Can We Still Win in Iraq?

I do not know, neither do you and neither do Democrats in Congress, nor do any of us know what will happen if our troops are forced out on an arbitrary Democratic timetable. We can be reasonably certain that more Iraqis will die if we leave precipitously. We do not know if leaving will save American lives in the long run. John McCain laid out some of the facts during a speech today at VMI.

McCain points out the hard truth that Democrats, intentionally or not, are adding to the burdens of our troops by failing to provide them with the resources necessary to succeed, and are making success less likely. They have their minds made up. They want to force U.S. troops out of Iraq.

I understand the Dem point of view. They believe that the war is lost and want to get out as fast as possible. If I believed that with their manifest certainty I would also call for immediate withdrawal. Where Dems are being dishonest is that they ignore the costs of defeat. They give the impression we can just go home. They recall Vietnam. The defeat there harmed U.S. interests worldwide, consigned millions to communist oppression and reeducation camps, but the North Vietnamese did not pursue us across the sea. They did not blow up markets in other countries. They did not fly airplanes into American buildings. The only ones trying to cross the sea after the Vietnam war were refugees who figured their chances on the open seas in small boats were better than staying with the communist rulers in Vietnam.

There were no operational links between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding 9/11, but clearly terrorists are in Iraq now. Terrorists consider Iraq the front line in their war against the infidel, even if not all "infidels" consider it the frontline against terrorism. They have flocked to Iraq to fight us. They will not merely go back to their homes if we leave, but they may come to ours.

The situation in Iraq presents both opportunity and risk. Iraq is in a complicated civil war, with various groups fighting each other. The risk in that is obvious. The opportunity involves who is fighting whom. Some Sunni tribes are now fighting Al Qaeda. This is based both on local grudges and cynical calculations. The cynical calculation is American troops, who providing a modicum of security that makes fighting Al Queda a tenable position. The descent into chaos that will follow a quick American withdrawal will provide a reprieve to our enemies. Conversely, in the long run, a stable Iraq will stabilize a region that has been unstable for the last century.

There is some indication that the new U.S.-Iraqi strategy in Iraq is producing desirable results. I do not know if we will succeed, neither do you, neither do the Dems in Congress. Given the high costs of defeat to all Americans and most Iraqis, I believe it makes sense to give it a chance.

Posted by Jack at April 11, 2007 11:25 PM
Comments
Comment #216144

Jack,
Wow. Are you serious? Do you also believe Gen. David Petraus drives all about Iraq in an unarmored vehicle, the markets are safer, and if we don’t stay in Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home? Hmmmm m m m … perhaps we ought to secure the borders then, eh?

I think our troops have already done their job pretty damn good.
But nation-building can not be done completely with troops alone.
Also, nation-buiding can not be done on the cheap either.
Also, nation-buidling can not be done when the White House makes blunder after blunder, and insisting on staying the course no matter how far off course it is.
Also, many more troops early on (as many recommended) could have possibly resulted in a much better end result. But that is just one of many massive blunders (I feel a counter-argument coming … all wars have blunders, etc.).

  • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified! The battle for hearts and minds has already been lost!
  • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.
  • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.
  • Our troops deserve better. It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars. Iraq will have their civil war with or without us.

At any rate, our troops have done a fine job and should now leave.
It’s time to leave.
We’ve been there long enough.
We’ve done enough.
Leaving does not equate to defeat.
It’s not up to us alone; the Iraqis have to choose.

Our troops should not be used for nation-buidling, being the world police, or refereeing the Iraqis’ civil war.
Our troops deserve better.
Bring them home now.

Most Americans want that.
Most of Congress wants that.
Leaving now does not equate to failure.
Leaving now does not mean we lost the war.
And McCain stating that “if we leave now”, “the terrorists will follow us here” is cheap fear mongering. But, he’s pretty much blown his credibility.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #216146

BTW, Bush could sign the BILL on his desk.
But he doesn’t like.
Is that because he wants to occupy Iraq indefinitely?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #216147

d.a.n.

No bill got to his desk. The Dems are still fooling with it.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #216148

Oh. I stand corrected.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #216149

Well, if the BILL reaches his desk, and if it has the funding for the troops, he’d better sign it, or he’s the one keeping funding from the troops.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #216152

Jack, The stated goals
1. Oust Hussein
2. Democratize Iraq
3. Rid iraq of WMD’s
have been achieved. Why are we still there?
Did the enlightened one (McCain) mention what the new goals are that would need to be accomplished prior to us leaving Iraq? The decider hasnt. Its all to vague to be beleived. Its time to negoiate a peace in this Country. IF we the people would reverse our opinion and allow the Decider to have his way once more what do we get in return. So far all the Decider and his Corporatist buddies have put on the table is more dead troops, more debt, and higher oil prices. What else can they offer we the people? How about this 1. less dead and less causualties. 2. Let the corporist fund the war out of their oil profits. and 3 cut us all in on the oil profits they will realize should we continue to stay in Iraq. Other than that why should we continue the debacle in Iraq. The terrorist coming here if we leave there dog dont hunt no more.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 12, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment #216153

Jack,
I have three honest questions for you that I have never gotten satisfactory answers for. First, what does “victory” in Iraq look like? Second, how can we achieve that with our military? Third, how many American lives, and how much time and money is victory worth?


Posted by: Brian Poole at April 12, 2007 12:57 AM
Comment #216156

The cost to continue the occupation of Iraq will be enormous (in terms of lives of U.S. and coalition troops, and monetary cost, and the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured).

It is wrong to subject our troops to danger for nation-building, refereeing Iraq’s civil war, and being the world police (among other potentially nefarious reasons … such as oil).

Our troops deserve better.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 1:06 AM
Comment #216160
Democrats, intentionally or not, are adding to the burdens of our troops by failing to provide them with the resources necessary to succeed

Bullshit, Jack. Name one thing Democrats are denying the troops.

They will not merely go back to their homes if we leave, but they may come to ours.

Hogwash. There are only a few hundred foreign fighters in Iraq. The rest are openly training in peace in Pakistan. While President Bush has US troops mired in Iraq, the terrorists are sitting around on the Afghan border sipping tea and planning ways to get a Pakistani nuke to use on New York.

Iraq is a dream come true for al Qaeda. It’s not only the most effective recruiting tool they have, but it’s got US troops and intelligence units tied down far away from where al Qada is planning the next attack on America.

Oh, and even better for al Qaeda, the Iraq war has so degraded the National Guard, that the aftermath of the next catastrophic attack on America will suffer from the same lack of resources we saw after Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #216163

Jack,

What is it about our occupation that holds the terrorists in Iraq? Why would our pullout foster more danger of ‘them’ following us home? Why can’t ‘they’ come here anyway, while we’re still occupying Iraq?

Why can’t we just face it…Iraq invasion was purposeless stupidity, and continued occupation is continued stupidity. Let’s bring our troops home, and beef up our ‘homeland security’…

An itteration: We can not ‘win’ a ‘war’ that was initiated sans honorable purpose.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 12, 2007 4:19 AM
Comment #216164

Jack,

The only power vacuum in Iraq is the one created by us, and being continued by us.

The Sunnis in Anbar are fighting Al Qaeda. The only difference between the Democratic timetable and the Republican timetable is that one is tied to a U.S. election. Republican delays for their political benefit is immoral.

It’s time to stop playing politics with the lives of our soldiers and move toward a political solution in Iraq. It is Republicans here who wish to delay this effort. It is Republicans who continue to give a window to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda does not need Iraq to launch attacks on the U.S. They didn’t need it before, now they have been given Pakistan, because GW Bush hasn’t got a clue as to how to fight terrorism.

We have not yet spawned Iraqi terrorist bent on coming to the U.S. If we continue to occupy Iraq, against the will of the Iraqi’s, we will generate them. Zbignew Bresinski had interesting thoughts on this recently. He suggested redeploying to Kuwait and Kurdish Iraq, to defuse the problems being created with Turkey. Widening this war is now the biggest threat. Reducing our profile there is key to an eventual political solution.

Posted by: gergle at April 12, 2007 4:19 AM
Comment #216165

I understand the Dem point of view. They believe that the war is lost and want to get out as fast as possible. If I believed that with their manifest certainty I would also call for immediate withdrawal. Where Dems are being dishonest is that they ignore the costs of defeat. They give the impression we can just go home. They recall Vietnam. The defeat there harmed U.S. interests worldwide, consigned millions to communist oppression and reeducation camps, but the North Vietnamese did not pursue us across the sea. They did not blow up markets in other countries. They did not fly airplanes into American buildings. The only ones trying to cross the sea after the Vietnam war were refugees who figured their chances on the open seas in small boats were better than staying with the communist rulers in Vietnam.

Posted by Jack at April 11, 2007 11:25 PM

Jack, Jack, Jack Jack,

the cost of defeat? Could that be worse than the cost of stalemate? Or is it only the cost to the US that counts? Whatever harm the US defeat in Vietnam did to the US, don’t you see the harm the present US engagement in the mid east, and Iraq particularly, is doing to the US around the globe? The world knows why you’re there. It has nothing to do with democracy. It’s about US hegemony and the policy of controlling the world’s energy resources, the PNAC. Don’t you see that if the US were successful in this strategy, the rest of the developed world would be massively beholden to the US with you guys having such a strangle hold? Do you think that turkeys vote for Christmas?

All this talk about people following you home. Get real here Jack. How many bases does the US have around the globe? How many countries is the US intriguing in at any given time? Why do you think they hit the US? Clearly it’s in response to the US presence in their countries, and its efforts to shape their countries to serve US interests. The reason the Vietnamese didn’t follow you home is because they had achieved their objectives. The war was over, and the hegemon was gone. No purpose would have been served and valuable resources badly needed to rebuild Vietnam would have been squandered, to no purpose. Now, if you guys left Arab and Muslim countries generally to follow their own genius, we just might find our way to peace between the nations and between nations. Because talk all you want about Islamofacists, the only people I have met on my travels around the globe are people pretty much like me. Interested in having a life of dignity and hope, of raising families that will grace their societies.

People need to open their eyes. I posted a couple of links for your perusal on another thread here lately and I think they are apt.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html

This is what this war, and all the wars are about. People in the street don’t want wars. National elites do, for their own selfish and megalomanic reasons. The sooner the person in the street wakes up to this fact and turfs out those who only represent the rich and powerful, the sooner we will find peace and mutual respect on our fragile planet.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 12, 2007 4:42 AM
Comment #216166
There were no operational links between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding 9/11, but clearly terrorists are in Iraq now. Terrorists consider Iraq the front line in their war against the infidel, even if not all “infidels” consider it the frontline against terrorism. They have flocked to Iraq to fight us. They will not merely go back to their homes if we leave, but they may come to ours.

Or just move back to the first front line, in Afghanistan where the “infidels” fighters - less limited to only US and UK as in Iraq BTW - are attacking their positions, both geographically and ideologically speaking.

Better in combatants lands than in, at first, unconnected land.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 12, 2007 5:12 AM
Comment #216169

Brian

Victory is a stable and reasonably democratic Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors. Iraq is already among the most democratic states in the Arab (not Muslim, BTW) world. It needs stability.

In Vietnam, Creighton Abrams crushed the insurgency using the “ink spot” method of creating security. The French did similar in Algeria. In both cases the wars were lost for political reasons back home and are now see, erroneously, as victories for insurgencies. U.S. advised governments also crushed insurgencies in Central America more recently. We know how to defeat these sorts of bad guys. This leads to your next question.

Nobody knows. So far the war has cost more than American 3000 lives over four years. I would not expect that rate to increases. I do, however, believe that if we do not finish the job, we will be back someplace else taking more casualties. I do not accept that a precipitous pullout would save American lives in anything but the shortest term.

d.a.n.
There is every reason to believe MORE Iraqis will die if we leave and some to believe that more Americans will die in the long run.

Our military expenditures are high, but they are lower as a % of U.S. GDP than at any time during the Cold War (which was not that long ago)

AP

Certainty and hope.

Marys

Wars are won and lost for a variety of reasons. Clarity of virtue when they begin is not prominent among them.

If I knew back then what I know today, I would do a lot of things differently. But given the uncertain nature of the universe, I am not sure I would make fewer or less serious mistakes. We have to deal with what we have now. If it becomes clear we cannot achieve a good result in Iraq and the net cost of leaving quickly are less than the net costs of staying, I will call for withdrawal. We may know by the end of summer. We are not there yet.

Gergle

The U.S. is working on political solutions. Power deployed is part of any political solution. That is why NATO preceded the peace in W. Europe. What political solution do you propose? BTW “talking” to Syria or Iran may be step in negations but is not a solution. Warren Christopher visited Damascus 20 times. They talked a lot. Syria supported Hezbollah, killed people in Lebanon and generally made trouble for the peace process the whole time.

Paul

Defeat can be worse than stalemate. The new strategy promises to break the stalemate BTW. Islamic terrorism is not like the conflict in Vietnam. Vietnam was a civil war and South Vietnam and Indo China were communism objectives. They achieved those objective. Islamic terrorism objective is to change fundamentally the relationship between themselves and the west. There goal is to weaken us and assert their own dominance. When the communist achieved their goals in SE Asia, millions died and the region was set back 20 years, but it did not follow us. Islamic terrorisms goal IS us.

You are right that people do not want wars. I will be glad when we can get out of Iraq. Given what we know now, I doubt it was a good idea to go in (although we do not know what the alternative history would have been). But we cannot make decisions about the past. We can only try to make this situation as good as we can.


Philippe

We are getting help in Afghanistan, but not as much as the urgency would imply.

This is (according to BBC
The main forces are the Americans (12,000 in Isaf, with another 8,000 under their own national command), the British (going up to 7,700 soon), the Canadians (2,500), the Dutch (2,100), the Poles (who reinforced earlier this year to 1000) and the Australians (going up to 1,000 by 2009).

There are also fighting forces from Denmark, Estonia and Romania. The Estonians are said by one expert to have better armoured vehicles than the British with whom they are based in Helmand province.

The French have some special forces with the Americans.

Some countries will not send troops if they risk too much combat. Few have fulfilled their aid pledges. If the bad guys were able to redeploy to Afghanistan, it would be tougher there and we really would not get anymore help. We would just move the conflict.

And this is the “good” war you will recall.

BTW - I am very busy at work these days, so I will be unable to answer anybody for about 12 hours a day. I have not forgotten you, but will no always be around.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 8:09 AM
Comment #216170

Jack,

I read the speech. Shockingly, McCain believes that the things are looking up lately! Who would have guessed? That’s what we’ve been hearing for years now.

It’s we are on a long (interminable?) car trip and the driver keeps telling everyone that we are almost at the destination. Eventually even the most feeble-minded person is going to figure out that the driver is either incompetent or lying.

Despite all of the BS, I think the Democrats should give Bush a few more months to show some progress. They should give him enough money to continue the war for six months, with no strings attached. If he can turn things award, he gets more money.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 12, 2007 8:18 AM
Comment #216171

Here is a great reply from Joe Biden:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102119.html

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 12, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #216172

Pardon the errors in my first post. I think I have not had enough coffee. Hopefully my meaning is clear.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 12, 2007 8:21 AM
Comment #216173

“Can We Still Win in Iraq?
I do not know, neither do you and neither do Democrats in Congress,…. “

Jack


It’s good to see you admit you do not know. So the question is how many lives, how many years and how much money are you willing to commit to this “war”? Another 1,000 deaths?, 3,000 or 50,000?
Would any number be an absolute cut off for you? How about money? Another $150,000,000,000? Another Half trillion? How about 5 trillion? How about years? How many more years of neglecting other issues here at home 1?,4?, 25?
When do you think you will know Jack?


I choose zero more lives, $0 more dollars and exit ASAP. The reason Jack is because we will never,never,never settle thousands of years of differences with our American views and weapons Never!!!

The bigger reason is because this (Iraq) has NOTHING to do with the War on Terror. The war on terror will ONLY end when our dependence on their oil ends and when the Israeli Palestine issue is settled. The war in Iraq addresses neither.

Posted by: muirgeo at April 12, 2007 8:43 AM
Comment #216180

Islamic terrorism objective is to change fundamentally the relationship between themselves and the west. There goal is to weaken us and assert their own dominance. When the communist achieved their goals in SE Asia, millions died and the region was set back 20 years, but it did not follow us. Islamic terrorisms goal IS us.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 08:09 AM

you see Jack, that’s where we fundamentally ( no pun intended!) disagree. Although I do agree with you that their objective is to fundamentally change their relationship with the west. Given the nature of that relationship, who would blame them? Again I agree that their aim is to weaken the west and even to assert their own dominance. But what is surprising about people seeking to assert their own dominance in their own region? Even Bin Laden, who I am not holding up as a paragon of anything virtuous, has offered a truce where there would be no attacks on the west if the west leaves muslim lands.

I note you have not responded to the links I placed in my last post. Perhaps you missed them, so here they are again;

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html

For my money Jack, when you read these linked articles, it all makes perfect sense. Of course there are many more out there which point in the same direction, not least the site of the Program for a New American Century (PNAC). It is all totally consistent with imperial ambition. And the real victims are of course, the people under the US Jackboot. Your grunts are not victims; as many of you point out, they are volunteers. If you volunteer for something, then presumably you know what that entails with all of the attendant risks. I imagine most of these people who volunteer, do so for patriotic reasons. But the neo con leadership magnificently stirred up passionate patriotism in the wake of 9/11. A very dangerous emotion. As Dr Johnson said “Patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel”

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 12, 2007 9:57 AM
Comment #216183

muriego,

Perfect points. Expect either (a) to be ignored or (b) the thread redirected to something stupid and/or pointless or (c) vapid talking point bullsh!t. In no case would history suggest a cogent reply addressing the concerns with a thoughtfull and comprehensive set of alternatives. (Note, I think he’ll go with an attack on my ‘alternatives’ comment)
Remember, Jack is an advocate only, not interested in truth, only in holding his own ground.

Even Bin Laden, who I am not holding up as a paragon of anything virtuous, has offered a truce where there would be no attacks on the west if the west leaves muslim lands…grunts are not victims; as many of you point out, they are volunteers….Posted by Paul in Euroland at April 12, 2007 09:57 AM
(a) w lies, bin laden is worse. To even refer to a bin-laden offer would not be a good argument to use. (b) the ‘grunts’ as you so kindly put it are victims. All promises to them are being broken, deployment limits, post trauma care, etc… all commitments broken by w. They volunteered ‘patriotically’ with best intentions, but have been betrayed and manipulated by the lies of this administration. I.e. victims of an evil hegemonistic policy.

PS> Who else has noticed a focus on “body counts” by the military propagandists? This is friggin 1969 all over again.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #216185

Oh, as for Jacks question. No, we can’t win. We lost this conflict the moment w+ decided it was more important to prove we could win a war against Saddam with few troops vs. do everything necessary to win the entire conflict.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #216186

And of course the war is going so well:

Suicide bomber kills 3 MPs at Iraq parliament

It was one of the worst security breaches inside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

W will not do what it takes to win this, and apparently neither will the Iraqis.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 12, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #216190

womanmarine, you, and others have spoken about doing what it takes to win. What are you saying it takes to win? There are some conflicts where it doesn’t matter what you do to win, because you are fated to lose anyway. Particularly if your goals for that country conflict with what the people there want. You own link proves it. If they can get bombs into the green zone, they can get them in anywhere. So saturating Iraq with more soldiers is no solution. Can you imagine trying to apply the same level of security to Iraq generally as is in place in the green zone? Can you imagine how impossible that is?

The US does not belong in Iraq. They did not invite you, and too many of them want you out for you to have a snowballs chance in hell to win. It is likely that your interfering in Iraq will leave a worse situation than you originally found, and I believe there is nothing you can do about that. Your country’s partisan position over Palestine means that no Arabs trust you or your intentions. Western presence in that region is alien, and like a disease attacking a human body being repulsed by the immune system, the Iraqi will eventually wear you down and spit you out. One of my country’s heros, referring to an earlier empire, said that it is not those who can inflict the most, but those who can endure the most, who will prevail. This is the comfort of the weak. Though they cannot win is a symmetrical contest, they have only to endure to wear down the enemy. The Iraqis saw off the last white empire, and they will see yours off too.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 12, 2007 10:45 AM
Comment #216191
Jack wrote: d.a.n. There is every reason to believe MORE Iraqis will die if we leave and some to believe that more Americans will die in the long run.
That’s the Iraqis’ own problem if they want to keep killing each other for no good reason(s).

Some people just can’t get along with anyone.
Some people ust aren’t fit to live with.

The second our troops leave, regardless of when it is, the Iraqis will continue their civil war (with or without us).
That’s the Iraqis’ choice.
If the majority of them want to keep killing each other for no good reason, my advice is that those that want peace leave now.
Our troops are not the world police.
Our troops are not responsible for the Iraqis never ending fanaticism and hatred.
Our troops have done plenty to give the Iraqis a chance.
Our troops can’t change the pysche of the Iraqi people; they can’t stop their fanaticism.
Our troops are not supposed to be used for nation-building.
Out troops should not be dying for Iraqis; most of which don’t want us there anyway.
Our troops deserve better. Yet their tours were just extended another three months.

Jack wrote: Our military expenditures are high, but they are lower as a % of U.S. GDP than at any time during the Cold War (which was not that long ago)
I am aware of the monetary cost. But that is still a V_E_R_Y lame and callous excuse to justify more loss of life. This argument is sounding strangely like the argument to defend the $8.9 trillion dollar National Debt (which is only a portion of the total $22 trillion of the total, nightmarish, massive federal debt). It’s good to put things in perspective, but now when other peoples’ lives are at stake.

Not a single O_N_E of our U.S. troops lives is worth losing for Iraqi.
While it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place based on flawed intelligence, the military did their job already.
The military stayed to try to secure order.
The military captured Saddam and his thugs.
The military took out a lot of terrorists, who were eager to die due to their extreme, insane fanaticism.
The military helped to re-build Iraq’s infrastructure.

Also, your hero Sen. John McCain says with great integrity that Iraq is now SAFE, that Gen. David Petraus can ride around Iraq in an unarmed humvee, that the markets are safe, and the media’s negativy is all wrong about Iraq. Soon, we’ll be seeing travel commercials to come vacation in Iraq.

Jack, your position and arguments are very weak.
Perhaps even immoral, since our troops should NOT be subjected to danger for nation-building, refereeing a civil war, being the world police, trying to “save face” for Bush and McCain and other pro-occupationists.

And, Jack, that is why MOST Americans disagree with you, Bush, and Congress persons recommending the continued occupation of Iraq.

  • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified!

  • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.

  • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.

  • Our troops deserve better. It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars. Iraq will have their civil war with or without us.

And the argument that the terrorists will follow us here is pure fear mongering.
Even if some were to follow us here, so what?
It is inevitable anyway.
And since we started an unnecessary, pre-emptive war, we have probably increased the chances of it.
Terrorists are still in Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Middle East, Syria, etc., ect., etc.

THEREFORE, regardless of the source of terrorist, and their demented reasons, it’s about time to secure our borders and ports.

But Bush refuses to do that, because cheap labor is more important to him, and his corporatist buddies that want cheap labor. Even the likes of Bill Gates, richest man on the planet wants more cheap labor. It’s all nothing more than corpocrisy, corporatism, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.

The hypocrisy of John McCain and others saying “the terrorists will follow us” here “if we leave Iraq” is amazing when Homeland Security is such a joke, with wide-open borders and ports, and thousands of illegal aliens flooding across the borders daily.
Some known to have crossed the border already are members of Al-Qaeda.

The hypocrisy will be all too clear when terrorists REALLY do get their hands on WMD, and there is little-to-nothing to stop them from strolling right across our wide-open borders, because Bush, the White House, and Do-Nothing Congress (mostly Democrats) refuse to secure the borders, despite the large majority of U.S. citizens that want it NOW, want illegal immigration stopped NOW, and want a lot of badly-needed, no-brainer, common-sense things done NOW. The voters are culpable too, because continually rewarding irresponsible, corrupt, greedy, arrogant, FOR-SALE, do-nothing incumbent politicians, who can’t get anything accomplished in a timely fasion (if ever), except to give themselves another raise (they just gave themsevles the 9th raise in 10 years), by repeatedly re-electing those same politicians over and over, won’t E_V_E_R make politicians anything but M_O_R_E irresponsible, unaccountable, fiscally, and morally bankrupt … and it will be the voters, themselves, that suffer the painful consequences the most, since the politicians have already given themselves golden parachutes and cu$hy, multi-million dollar pensions (at the duped tax payers’ expense).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #216192

DAN,
“BTW, Bush could sign the BILL on his desk. But he doesn’t like. Is that because he wants to occupy Iraq indefinitely?”


No. He wants to win; just like the troops want to do!! The “Occupier” of Iraq was hung and his sons were killed. :-)


AP,
“Bullshit, Jack. Name one thing Democrats are denying the troops.”


The chance for Victory (majority of Democrats in Congress); the presumption of innocence (Murtha); the benefit of the doubt (Kerry)… oops, you said one thing. I’ll stay with victory!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #216193

Paul:

I happen to agree with you. It’s way too late and we have not the resources left to do what it takes. We might have had we done things properly from the beginning. Trying to win this thing on the cheap and from an ignorance of the area, there is no win possible in my opinion.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 12, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #216197
rahdimly wrote:
d.a.n wrote: , “BTW, Bush could sign the BILL on his desk. But he doesn’t like. Is that because he wants to occupy Iraq indefinitely?”

No. He [Bush] wants to win; just like the troops want to do!! The “Occupier” of Iraq was hung and his sons were killed. :-)

Uhhhmmmm m m m … sure our troops want to win, and they ALREADY have.
The question now is, do they want to stay ?
So YOU think our U.S. troops want to stay ?
Well … that is NOT what our own troops say.
You should ask our troops about that …

  • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified!

  • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.

  • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.

  • Our troops deserve better. It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars. Iraq will have their civil war with or without us.

So, rahdimly, care to explain that?
OHHHhhhhh … I feel a lame argument coming … “that’s a poll, and polls mean nothing”.

rahdigly wrote:
American Pundit wrote:AP, Bullshit, Jack. Name one thing Democrats are denying the troops.

rahdigly,
A.P. is technically correct, since (as Jack pointed out), the BILL has not yet reached Bush’s desk.
And if it does, and the BILL contains funds for the troops, Bush had better sign it, or Bush will be the one denying funds to the troops. If Bush vetos it due to future plans for withdrawl from Iraq, it will prove that Bush is really interested in long term occupation of Iraq. Already, this week, Bush was talking about how we left troops in Japan and Germany for a long time. Bush is trying to lay the groundwork for a long-term occupation of Iraq. That’s wrong, wrong, WRONG! That is NOT the WRONG thing to do to our troops.

rahdigly wrote: The chance for Victory (majority of Democrats in Congress); the presumption of innocence (Murtha); the benefit of the doubt (Kerry)… oops, you said one thing. I’ll stay with victory!!!
? ? ?
rahdigly wrote: Victory!!!

rahdigly,
Our troops were ALREADY victorious.
They already removed Saddam and his thugs.
Our troops already sacrificed to give the Iraqis every opportunity for a better nation.
Our troops did their job quite well.

What you are now pushing is the prolonged O_C_C_U_P_A_T_I_O_N of Iraq.
There’s a big difference, and trying to portray it as a need for Victory!!!, or keeping the terrorists from following us home, just doesn’t fly when there are so many flaws, and so much hypocrisy revealed by those arguments.

rahdigly,
See the poll above.
Look at other polls.
The majority of Americans (including the opinions of MOST U.S. troops) do NOT agree with you (or Bush).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 11:23 AM
Comment #216200

I also thought it was funny (not really; disgustingly hypocritical) that Bush was saying one of his reasons for possibly vetoing the BILL was because it also had a lot of pork-barrel in it.

What a hypocrite. Where was his veto pen before? ! ?

But how about that 110th Congress too?
What happened to the ban on earmarks?
Looks like this 110th Congress Do-Nothing is up to the same old pork-barrel, graft, and waste as the 109th Congress.

But, why should we expect anything different, when 90% of the 110th Congress come from the 109th Congress?

If voters want real results, it ain’t never gonna happen by rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians, by voters repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #216201
Bullshit, Jack. Name one thing Democrats are denying the troops.
Certainty and hope.

For Christ’s sake, Jack. That’s the best you can do? You imply that Democrats are stealing our soldier’s bullets, then come back with some crap like that?

Hell, your own article belies your own lack of certainty and hope.

Can We Still Win in Iraq? I do not know

Please, Jack. It’s not Democrats — or even you — who are denying our troops “certainty and hope”. It’s an incompetent President who sent them to do a job without the resources or the plan to win.

And by ‘resources’, I’m talking about tangibles like enough troops to do the job, enough body armor to be more than just targets, and enough up-armored vehicles to keep them alive.

Don’t talk to me about bullcrap like “certainty and hope”, if you want certainty and hope, send another 280,000 troops.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Comment #216202

Also, Iraq is already very safe (according to Sen. John McCain).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #216203

It aint just the Democrats that’s keeping funding from the troops. True, they are playing games with the lives of our boys and girls in war zones by not passing a clean appropriations bill. But Bush is also playing games with their lives by threatening a veto.
The whole thing is a game for power to them. And our youngins are dying while they play their political games trying to keep or get the White House, and keep or regain Congress.
Both sides are proving why neither party should should have Congress or the White House after Nov, 08.
Personally I think all 537 of them need to be impeached.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 12, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #216206
Victory is a stable and reasonably democratic Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors. Iraq is already among the most democratic states in the Arab (not Muslim, BTW) world. It needs stability.

How do you define stability? How do we know when we’ve won? One car bombing per day? One per week? Only a few kidnappings and blackmailings of senior officials a month? Perfect tranquility? As stable as Israel? How about Lebanon? Is that level of stability worth it?

In Vietnam, Creighton Abrams crushed the insurgency using the “ink spot” method of creating security. The French did similar in Algeria. In both cases the wars were lost for political reasons back home and are now see, erroneously, as victories for insurgencies.

Jack, I am by no means a military historian, but a quick look on wikipedia showed that Abrams had over 500,000 troops to carry out his inkblot strategy with. I don’t see how our current military, with less than half that number, can perform the low tech business of crushing an insurgency in the same way. That conflict also didn’t have the same level of thousand-year old enmity between groups that this one does, or have the major armed leader of the group that is purportedly on our side (the shia-al Sadr) rabidly against us. Saying “we’ve done it before” is not a plan. I would say that by not taking the aftermath of the invasion seriously, Bush alreadly lost the war for political reasons.

I do, however, believe that if we do not finish the job, we will be back someplace else taking more casualties
You know, the specter of fighting some unknown threat in some unknown way in some unknown place for a reason that may be in some unknown way connected to withdrawing from Iraq does not seem to me like a great reason to stay. Faith like that is good at maintaining your loyalty, I guess, but I’d like to hear a likely scenario of the consequences of our leaving that is 1.Worse than our staying. 2. Not likely to happen whether we stay or go. Posted by: Brian Poole at April 12, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #216208

The question has been asked what it’ll take to win in Iraq. The answer is simple. Accomplishment of the mission.
The mission of the military was given us by Bush himself when we first went into Iraq. Remove Saddam from power. In Bush’s own words. MISSION ACCOMPLISED! The war was over.
But then Bush went and changed the mission. ‘NATION BUILDING’. The only thing is Bush didn’t plan this one out very good. In fact he flat screwed it all up.
The first thing he failed to understand is that the military ISNOT the folks to ‘nation build’. They haven’t been trained for that. In fact it could be argued very successfully that they are trained for just the opposite.
The second thing he failed to understand is that he need more than 20,000 troops to secure the country enough for his ‘Nation Building ’ plan to work. At least 1,000,000 are needed.
The third thing he failed to understand is that he needed to send 3 groups of folks to Iraq for his ‘Nation Building’. He needs one group that can build the infrastructure needed for a stable country. And one group that knows how to bring opposing parties together to stabilize the country. And he needs a group that knows how to deal forcefully with the parties that don’t want to work with the others and cause trouble.
The military is only trained in one of these categories.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 12, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #216209

Wow.

Ron Brown and I basically agree on something.

Wow.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 12, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #216210
Ron Brown wrote: It aint just the Democrats that’s keeping funding from the troops. True, they are playing games with the lives of our boys and girls in war zones by not passing a clean appropriations bill. But Bush is also playing games with their lives by threatening a veto. The whole thing is a game for power to them. And our youngins are dying while they play their political games trying to keep or get the White House, and keep or regain Congress. Both sides are proving why neither party should should have Congress or the White House after Nov, 08. Personally I think all 537 of them need to be impeached.
That’s the smartest thing written here! Excellent!
  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 12:19 PM
    Comment #216218

    Woody

    Eventually even the most feeble-minded person is going to figure out that the driver is either incompetent or lying.

    Or lost.

    Posted by: ILdem at April 12, 2007 12:58 PM
    Comment #216219

    What is winning in Iraq? Bush and the Republicans, for all their Gung-ho speeches lay out no roadmap to victory, no series of operations and initiatives that clearly leads to our victory.

    They have set out a policy where all our hopes and dreams for the War in Iraq depend on the decisions of the Iraqis and of the insurgents. Anybody who has studied military history and strategy knows that it is not a good thing to leave the enemy with the strategic initiative, with the ability to decide outcomes.

    From the start, the American people wanted otherwise. They wanted America in control of the situation. To that end, they supported continued efforts to stabilize Iraq, even long after considerable questions had arisen about the justification for the war.

    But rightly, folks have a limit to their patience.

    Republicans should realize that any plan that depends on the pacification of Iraq for our departure, if not done with overwhelming force, plays into the hands of the enemy.

    Without overwhelming force, we end up lingering long term, which doesn’t sit well with any occupied population. Without overwhelming force, we do not have the initiative, cannot prevent the dangerous behavior of the insurgents. Without overwhelming force, the security is insufficient to let the government, the economy, and the infrastructure grow strong, and the timespans are too long to prevent dependency from developing.

    In short, without a massive increase in forces that is impossible short of a politically untenable draft, this war is a defeat waiting to happen.

    Now we have the responsibility to give the people of Iraq the softest landing possible. But if we cannot win this war ourselves, we must leave. Weighing those together, I feel the obligation we have here is to leave early enough, and gradually enough, and with enough help and efforts at stabilization from the international community, that this damage is minimized.

    The longer we wait, the more we try and beat our heads against the war on this war, the less strength we will have left to do this well. Already now, the Bush adminstration is extending tours of duty by three months, and bringing soldiers to the front after less than a year out of service. They are stripping the gears on the machine of our military to avoid the political shame of losing a war, or starting a draft.

    This, I feel, is highly indicative of the priorities and thinking of this adminstration and the Republican party as it’s composed now: they are choosing a lousy policy situation for the sake of avoiding a lousy political situation.

    We cannot win a war with this President in the White House. They simply do not understand what to place importance on, and what to let slide. The irony is, they could have let a lot of the politics they obsessed about take care of itself, if only they had handled the policy properly.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2007 1:02 PM
    Comment #216220

    DAN,
    “In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.”


    In December 2006, the Military Times poll offered something slightly different.

    13% of the military felt we should have Zero troops (i.e. leave). Yet, 51% felt we should have the same to more troops there; opposed to a total of 26% that feel we should have less the amount of troops to none. That (certainly) doesn’t sound like the troops feel the “U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately”.


    13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?

    Zero 13%
    0-50,000 7%
    50,000-144,000 6%
    145,000 13%
    146,000-200,000 22%
    200,000+ 16%
    No opinion/Don’t know 23%


    Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 1:11 PM
    Comment #216223

    rahdimly,
    Good try, but what you show does not clearly define the goal.
    Troops will want MORE troops if they’re stuck there anyway, because it makes them all safer.
    It does NOT mean they want to be there, or think we should be there.
    There’s a difference.

    Also, notice that the results you show are all over the place.
    There are 145,000 troops, but the largest group (22%) believe more are needed. That’s what everyone said all along.
    If the goal is better security, more troops are needed.
    But Bush is trying to do it on the cheap, and it is costing lives.
    And while 38% (22%+16%) want more troops, a much larger group do NOT (62%=13%+7%+6%+13%+23%).

    But, you can’t see that, eh?
    Just look at the groups (20%=13%+7%) that wants ZERO to 50,000 troops only. Add in the don’t knows, and it is 43%=13%+7%+23%.

    Thank you for showing us that.
    It confirms what I thought.

    Also, here is some more information from that link you were so kind to provide us:

    _______

  • (6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

  • Yes 41%
    No 37%
    No opinion/no answer 9%
    Decline to answer/no answer 11%
  • 41% is NOT half (not a majority).

  • 57% do NOT agree.

  • _______
  • (10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?

  • Approve 35%
    Disapprove 42%
    No opinion 10%
    Decline to answer 12%
  • 35% approve? That’s not very good at all.

  • 42% disapprove. 64% do NOT say they approve

  • _______

    Starting to get the picture?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 1:39 PM
    Comment #216229

    Hell, we can’t even protect the green zone and the lawmakers!

    Bombing at Iraqi parliament kills 8

    BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber blew himself up in the Iraqi parliament cafeteria Thursday, killing at least eight people — including three lawmakers — and wounding dozens in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone.
    Security officials at parliament, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information, said they believed the bomber was a bodyguard of a Sunni member of parliament who was not among the dead. They would not name the member of parliament.

    There is no way until or unless we get the Iraqis to stop fighting among themselves. How many troops will that take? How many troops that we don’t have? Troops are not going to be able to stop the fighting between Iraqis. We can’t make it safe enough for folks who might be able to broker a peace between the factions. Add the terrorists to that. I want to know just how this “surge” of a minimal amount of troops (all we apparently have available) can/will accomplish this?

    I don’t believe we have the resources to do what needs to be done. We can’t seem to enlist enough help from other countries to make up the difference. Somebody please tell me how to stop this and make anything winnable about this fiasco.

    Posted by: womanmarine at April 12, 2007 2:27 PM
    Comment #216232

    rahdigly
    If you’d polled the troops in Vietnam, specially toward the end, 99% of them would have told ya we had no business there and should leave. But everyone of them would’ve wanted more troops there than there was.
    Ever here of safety in numbers? The more friends, specially very well armed ones, you have around ya the less chance of being attacked. When the chances of being attacked goes down the chances of being wounded or killed goes down.
    So it’s only natural for the troops to want as many troops around them as possible. They might be willing to put their lives on the line in service to their country. But that doesn’t mean they want to die for it.
    The main goal of a soldier is to stay alive in situations where it usually aint very easy too.


    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 12, 2007 2:47 PM
    Comment #216233

    womanmarine
    And McCain say it’s safe over there!

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 12, 2007 2:48 PM
    Comment #216234

    DAN, ok, let me see if I understand you correctly, you quote a March 2006 poll that says ” 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.” Then, I submit a December 29, 2006 poll that shows 51% believe we should have the same amount to more; opposed to (only) a total of 26% that say less than the amount we have there. It’s pretty clear.

    “There are 145,000 troops, but the largest group (22%) believe more are needed. That’s what everyone said all along. If the goal is better security, more troops are needed. But Bush is trying to do it on the cheap, and it is costing lives. And while 38% (22%+16%) want more troops, a much larger group do NOT (62%=13%+7%+6%+13%+23%).”


    You’re changing the subject of the polls. You stated how 25% wanted out; I showed you a poll that said 51% wanted the same to more, that’s over 50% that don’t want to leave; compared to 13% that want zero (don’t want to be there or leave).


    By the way, the “picture” that you should get is that you don’t include the “no opinions/Don’t approve” in favor of your argument, b/c that’s incorrect. You don’t use those in one way or the other, that’s why it’s don’t know/no opinion.


    Here’s a questions from that poll I noticed you (conveniently) left out:


    11) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

    Approve 52%
    Disapprove 31%
    No opinion 6%
    Decline to answer 10%

    Again, over 50%. That’s not the same as some of you bloggers out there.

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 3:00 PM
    Comment #216238

    No, we cannot win a war that has already been lost.
    Iraq is a civil war we have no business being in.
    As womanmarine noted, there will no longer be security even inside the Green Zone.
    McCain, the president, and others who think that victory lies ahead must be either stupid or completely delusional.
    Iraq is the worst foreign policy disaster this country has ever known, perpetrated by the most thoroughly dishonest administration this country has ever known.
    Bring our soldiers home NOW.

    Posted by: Adrienne at April 12, 2007 3:56 PM
    Comment #216240

    The New York Times talks about this very subject today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/opinion/12thu1.html

    Btw, they say no, victory in Iraq is not possible now. Also I don’t know of any Democrats that say there will be no repercussions to pulling out. On the contrary, I think a majority of us feel we will be paying for this war in one way or another for decades to come.

    Posted by: Max at April 12, 2007 4:35 PM
    Comment #216243

    Jack

    Please explain what you mean by the term “win” in relationship to Iraq? I mean explicitly what a win would look like, as opposed to now. Then explain how an occupying army can accomplish that.

    Thanks in advance for your help.

    Posted by: mental wimp at April 12, 2007 4:40 PM
    Comment #216249

    Jack,

    I propose Iraqification. I propose the Iraq Study group. Redeploying to Kuwait and Kurdish Iraq seem reasonable. Let the Shia Iraqi regime that we put in place, defend their government. If they get tired of the killing,(i.e. begin to fear losing) they will sue for peace with the Sunni’s. The Sunni’s have already begun to attack Al Qaeda. Let Iran spend their lovely Oil money on Killing Sunni’s and the Saudi’s on Killing Shia. As they watch their money go down the crapper, perhaps they’ll sue for peace as well. Jordan and Syria are already tired of the refugees.

    All that Bush is doing now is delaying the inevitable for U.S.political gain. Stop playing politics with our soldiers lives. Bush’s political game isn’t even going to work. He’s betting on long odds. He’s a risk taker….with other people’s money and lives. Drunks often refuse to accept reality and do not care about the damage they do to those around them. Stop enabling this behavior, Jack. Wake up. Your president needs an intervention.

    Posted by: gergle at April 12, 2007 6:01 PM
    Comment #216250

    Jack, I’ll give you this. You seem to be the only Republican on this blog, who can stand the heat.

    Posted by: gergle at April 12, 2007 6:07 PM
    Comment #216251

    Jack,

    Where Dems are being dishonest is that they ignore the costs of defeat. They give the impression we can just go home. They recall Vietnam. The defeat there harmed U.S. interests worldwide, consigned millions to communist oppression and reeducation camps, but the North Vietnamese did not pursue us across the sea.

    I’m pretty sure most reasonable people who studied atleast SOME history would know, from hindsight, that leaving Vietnam was probably the best move in U.S. foriegn policy regarding Southeast Asia in the latter 20th century. As for the millions living under communist oppression and being sent to brainwashing camps, their situation wasn’t any better when they had Agent Orange rained on them, or being bombed the living hell out of.

    To bring up another point, the whole Domino theory, where if Vietname fell Communism would spread like wildfire within the region, turned out to be a load of hocus pocus. Isn’t it awfully weird that the “Domino Theory” and “Terrorism spreading if Iraq fell Theory” sound so similar…? Amazing how history repeats itself…

    Posted by: greenstuff at April 12, 2007 6:23 PM
    Comment #216252

    rahdimly,
    Another Good try, but that don’t cut it.
    Let’s look at it again.
    ______

  • (13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?

  • Zero: 13%
    0-50,000: 7%
    50,000-144,000: 6%
    145,000: 13%
    146,000-200,000: 22%
    200,000+: 16%
    No opinion/Don’t know: 23%
  • 38% (=22%+16) say we need more than the current 145,000 troops.

  • 62% (=13%+7%+6+13%+23%) do NOT vote that we need more than the current 145,000 troops.

  • 26% (=13%+7%+6%) vote we need LESS troops.
  • Again, thank you for showing us that link
    Like I said, it confirms what I thought all along.
    _______

  • (6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

  • Yes 41%
    No 37%
    No opinion/no answer 9%
    Decline to answer/no answer 11%
  • 41% vote YES (still not a majority).

  • 57% (=37%+9%+11%) do NOT vote “YES”.

  • Seems pretty clear. Most people do NOT vote “YES” that we should have invaded Iraq.
    _______
  • (10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?

  • Approve 35%
    Disapprove 42%
    No opinion 10%
    Decline to answer 12%
  • 35% approve. That’s not very good at all.

  • 64% (42%+10%+12%) do NOT vote “Approve”

  • Seems pretty clear. Most people do NOT vote “Approve” of Bush’s handling of Iraq.
    _______
    ragdigly,
    We were talking about Iraq, and this question is Bush’s rating of his job in general.
    Oh well, OK …
  • (11) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

  • Approve 52%
    Disapprove 31%
    No opinion 6%
    Decline to answer 10%
  • 52% approve. That’s really not very good, historically speaking.

  • 47% (31%+6%+10%) do NOT vote “Approve”

  • Seems like a tie there.
    Certainly nothing to brag or get excited about.
    _______

    So, none of that looks very good at all for Bush.
    Especially when Bush’s rating for his handling of Iraq is so dysmal (i.e. 35%).
    And that low rating is well deserved, due the his numerous blunders.

    And did you know that Bush’s approval rating (by ALL Americans) is somewhere in the 33% range? (i.e. in the toilet)?

    In fact, are you trying to help Bush, or show how utterly dysmal his ratings really are? ! ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 6:27 PM
    Comment #216257

    On the contrary, I think a majority of us feel we will be paying for this war in one way or another for decades to come.

    Posted by: Max at April 12, 2007 04:35 PM

    AGREED! We’ll be paying for this one for a very long time.
    So far 3200 of our sons and daughters have been killed. The families of these youngins will never completely get over their loss. Neither will the country.
    I don’t have the numbers for the wounded and maimed. But we’ll be paying in lost productivity by the maimed for years. Not to mention the cost of rehabilitation.
    The effects on the families who’s lives have been disrupted by the war won’t be known for years.
    Neither will the psychological toll on the youngsters fighting over there.
    Then there’s the cost in dollars and cents. Again I don’t know how much has been spent or will be spent before this war is over. But you can bet your last dollar, and it might cost ya that, that we’ve borrowed every cent of it. And it will have to be paid back, WITH INTEREST!
    We had this one won. Saddam had been taken out. Remember? “MISSION ACOMPLISHED!”
    But then Bush decided to go “Nation Building”. And that’s when he really started screwing the pouch.
    He failed to define ‘Nation Building’.
    He failed to give the Generals the troops they said they needed.
    He failed to send folks over there that can do the things the military aint trained to.
    He failed to make sure that our kids were getting the right and enough supplies.
    He failed listen to the folks he put in charge.
    He’s insisted on ‘staying the course’. Even though it’s obvious to a blind man it aint working.
    AND WORSE OF ALL!!!!!
    He’s now playing political power games with Congress and our youngins are continuing to die.
    Right now I don’t see any way of winning without a major change in policy.
    We need at least 1,000,000 more troops. Troops we aint got.
    We need folks that can build a lasting infrastructure in a very short time.
    We need folks that can bring all those factions that hate each other together into a workable government.
    And we need a lot more time to accomplish this.
    But I don’t know if we have that much more time. Folks are getting impatient with with our Commander in Chief. And I really don’t blame them.
    We’ve seen one blunder after another from him. And he won’t even come close to admitting we either need to change policy or leave.
    Pulling off a win right now will take a stroke of genius that I don’t see coming out of the White House or Congress.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 12, 2007 7:34 PM
    Comment #216261

    Muirego

    If we had the choice tomorrow of spending nothing and losing no American lives, I would say yes. That is not one of the options. You have your choice from among risky options. I do not know whether the surge will work or not. Neither do you. I can anticipate some of the costs of defeat. They are fearful.

    Paul

    If we look only at the history of the last centuries, your objection makes some sense. Many of these terrorists have an absurdly long view of history, but we can learn from some of it. Until the 20th Century, Islam held sway in much of Europe. The century before that Islamic pirates waged their own private jihads by robbing Christian commerce and enslaving the people they found. You may if you are looking for the place where the most per capita slaves were taken, it is not Africa, it is that Balkans and the slavers are not Europeans but Arabs. Osama bin Laden still refers to the Andalusia debacle. He is referring to the loss of Spain in 1492.

    Muslim states have not been aggressive outside their region of late only because they lacked the power to project their will. When they come even into Europe, some demand Sharia law. Some German courts have even been granting it to them.

    As for the West leaving Muslim lands, that is just silly. We live in an interconnected world. Should all Muslim’s leave Western lands? Osama bin Laden is a bigot and so are those who support him. They want to set up the kind of segregation we saw hundreds of years ago.

    And who wants us to leave? There is no democracy in Arab lands. Sudan wants “us” to leave them alone to murder their fellow Muslims in Darfur. I am not sure their fellow Muslims in Darfur would have the same opinion. The Kurds were delighted to be saved from Saddam’s genocide. In fact there is no such thing as Muslim or even Arab opinion.

    Dave

    You may not understand what I write. I will try to use other concepts. But you cannot justifiable accuses me of ignoring you and I never write things I know to be untrue. I find much less respect for the truth among many of my critics.

    Sometimes I do not answer because I do not have the time. I usually work about ten hours a day and I often farm on my free days. It will get worse, as I am told not to use my work computer for such frivolities as blogging.

    Brian

    It was a different scale but a similar problem. Vietnam is not like Iraq in any particular way except that there is insurgency. The big difference in Vietnam was N. Vietnam, which conquered the south.

    Stability would not mean complete peace. There are place in many U.S. or European cities were I would not go w/o an armed escort and there are places were police power does not reach. Most developing countries are less well organized. Stability in this case just means it will not descent into chaos and the rule of law applies over much of the country. After that, we will work on it. Countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Philippines, Columbia are reasonable stable, but still have significant troubles and active insurgencies. That would be a stable outcome for Iraq too.

    As for where we might be fighting in 2010 if we pull out in 2007, I would not doubt it would be back in Iraq or the immediate region. Afghanistan will heat up in the immediate aftermath.

    Gergle

    That may be an option soon. The goal of the surge is to allow Iraqification.

    Greenstuff

    I addressed how Vietnam was different. The loss was still very costly to us. Take a look at my new article on McCain. I address some of the Iraq centralities.

    Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2007 7:53 PM
    Comment #216275

    Dan,
    “Seems pretty clear. Most people do NOT vote “YES” that we should have invaded Iraq.”

    Wrong! “Don’t know” or “no opinions” does not mean that you count that in the “don’t approve” or “shouldn’t have gone” category. That’s ridiculous! You’re trying to “spin” this poll in your favor. The troops have spoken and they’re telling us what they think; you just don’t like their answer, so you (somehow) think you have the right to misconstrue what they say (or what they don’t say or have no opinion of)?!! Unbelievable!! They deserve much better than that from people that “support” them…

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 9:08 PM
    Comment #216277

    Ron,
    I agree.
    I understand your frustration and concern (i.e. your son being in Iraq, and his tour just got extended).

    Just one thing.
    I don’t think the war was lost.
    Our troops did their job well, despite the numerous blunders of Bush and his co-blunderers.

    Now it is simply time for our troops to come home.
    Our troops gave their lives and limbs and years to secure Iraq.

    If Iraqis squander that after we leave, that’s their own problem.
    That’s their own choice.

    Our troops are not the world police.
    Using our troops that way is wrong.
    If we are the world police, why aren’t we in Darfur, Somalia, N.Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.?

    Therefore, our troops have completed their mission, and staying any longer is an occupation, and it needs to end now.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 9:20 PM
    Comment #216284
    rahdimly wrote:
    d.a.n wrote: Seems pretty clear. Most people do NOT vote “YES” that we should have invaded Iraq.
    rahdigly wrote: d.a.n , Wrong! “Don’t know” or “no opinions” does not mean that you count that in the “don’t approve” or “shouldn’t have gone” category.
    No, rahdigly, you are wrong.

    You’re not paying close attention.
    What I wrote is factual.
    Please re-read it.
    One more time for you, since seem to be having trouble comprehending it …
    _________

  • (13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?

  • Zero: 13%
    0-50,000: 7%
    50,000-144,000: 6%
    145,000: 13%
    146,000-200,000: 22%
    200,000+: 16%
    No opinion/Don’t know: 23%
    • 38% (=22%+16) say we need more than the current 145,000 troops.

    • 62% (=13%+7%+6+13%+23%) do NOT vote that we need more than the current 145,000 troops.

    • 26% (=13%+7%+6%) vote we need LESS troops.
    _________
    Read carefully. 62% do NOT vote that we need more than the current 145,000 troops. That’s a fact.
    Read carefully. Only 38% say we need more than the current 145,000 troops. That’s a fact.

    rahdigly wrote: That’s ridiculous! You’re trying to “spin” this poll in your favor.
    Not at all.

    You provided the poll, and we thank you for that.

    Now read those things above carefully, and you’ll see it is completely factual.
    The problem is, you saw the poll results and thought the strengthend your argument.
    But it doesn’t.
    It weakens it.
    And now you say “You’re trying to “spin” this poll in your favor”.
    Nonsense.
    Read it again and get back to me.

    rahdigly wrote: The troops have spoken and they’re telling us what they think;
    No kiddin’ ? After all, isn’t that the point of a poll? Fascinating how that works.
    rahdigly wrote: … you just don’t like their answer, so you (somehow) think you have the right to misconstrue what they say (or what they don’t say or have no opinion of)?!! Unbelievable!! They deserve much better than that from people that “support” them.
    rahdigly, What is unbelievable is your inability to face facts. Your own facts you kindly provided.

    And, then, in your desparation, you play the old “you’re not supporting our troops” card.
    You somehow, in your desparation, extrapolate and twist it around so that those that don’t agree with you are against supporting our troops.
    How lame is that?
    You say our troops deserve better.

    Yes, they do deserve better.
    They shouldn’t be used for nation-building, policing the world, or refereeing the Iraqis civil war.
    And most of our troops agree with that according to your poll () and this poll of U.S. troops, which specifically (unlike your poll) asks the question directly “should we stay or leave”.

    Read it and weep.
    Or, why not admit you’re wrong.

    Thanks again for the link. It corroborates my poll. Anything else?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2007 9:46 PM
    Comment #216288

    Jack,

    I’m not the one who’s misunderstood what’s being posted. and
    You picked a variant of (c) for muirgeo.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 10:00 PM
    Comment #216309

    d.a.n
    Our troops have never lost a war. It’s been the politicians that’s lost them.
    In fact our youngins had this one won. They took Saddam out like they were told too. And that’s when we should have left.
    But Bush decided to go ‘Nation Building’. And that’s where things started going wrong. His insistence on ‘staying the course’ is what’s going to lose this one. Not our brave kids that’s doing their jobs regardless of the obstacles that their Commander in Chief has put in their way.
    The parents of these kids have every right to be very proud of their sons and daughters. They have once again proved that they will do what’s asked them to the best of their ability.

    Your right. The Iraqis have been given the chance to make their country a better place than it was under Saddam. And our children are the ones that’s given them that chance at the cost of 3200 of their generation. Now it’s up to them to take the bull by the horns and make it better.
    But it looks like the Iraqis don’t really care enough to make their country a better place. From the Iraqi on the street all the way up to the President of Iraq, they seem willing to let more of our youngins die to keep them safe.
    It’s time to tell the Iraqis step up to the plate or they can stew in their own juices.


    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 12, 2007 10:23 PM
    Comment #216322
    But Bush decided to go ‘Nation Building’. And that’s where things started going wrong.

    It’s even worse than that. To win the struggle against Islamic extremists, we’ll eventually have to do some successful nation building — like what we’re doing in Afghanistan with the UN and NATO. Unfortunately, Bush poisoned the well.

    Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 10:58 PM
    Comment #216324

    BTW, Jack. I’m disappointed, but not surprised that you were unable to address my earlier comments. You’re on the losing end of an argument and it’s better to cut your losses.

    Posted by: American Pundit at April 12, 2007 11:02 PM
    Comment #216355
    Ron Brown wrote: d.a.n Our troops have never lost a war.
    True. Even in Vietnam, the kill ratio was very high (i.e. Enemy KIA / U.S. KIA).
    Ron Brown wrote: It’s been the politicians that’s lost them.
    Sad isn’t it. I do not want one single more American troop to die refereeing Iraq’s civil war.

    Our troops are damn good, in spite of blunder after blunder and terrible leadership from the Whitehouse (in Vietnam and Iraq; LBJ and Bush respectively).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2007 1:59 AM
    Comment #216368

    Dave

    I do not have to choose to anwer from among the options you give.

    Many times Dems and liberals want to choose from among options that do not exist in reality. We have no zero options.

    Right now I am getting ready to ride my bike to work. It is really windy and a bit cold. I have two options. I can give up and take the metro or I can ride in the wind. If you offered me the third option of riding in a calm, sunny condition, I would be happy, but it would not be true. Even in small decisions, there are tradeoffs.

    I really believe the lack of this understanding is behind must of the passion in political arguments. People want to have SS just like today, but if they have to pay more they think it is a conspiracy. They want health care for all AND at a lower price. They want to limit CO2, but they want the price of fuel to remain low.

    With Iraq it has gotten silly. You get the impression these days that Saddam was running a peaceful country and we just went in there to take over the oil wells. That IS what you believe, right? There was no zero option back then either. Not doing something leads to consequences too.

    You can often get things you want, but you can never get all you want at the same time. That is not the result of incompetence, conspiracy or ill will. It is just how thing always have been.

    Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
    To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
    Would not we shatter it to bits-and then
    Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!

    Good luck

    Posted by: Jack at April 13, 2007 8:26 AM
    Comment #216402
    I do not have to choose to anwer from among the options you give.
    Absolutely. But you are predictable. For example, your last post attempts to redefine the solution of leaving Iraq as soon as possible (like today) as an “option that (does) not exist in reality”. (b) with elements of (c). The option exists, it is not cost free (no one says it is, but you insist we say that anyway), it is just not what you want.

    So, we wait for your argument. Hoping for a real and fact based one, instead we get analogies that might look solid from the front, but are weak redirections and when viewed from the side? Nothing. (see My Cousin Vinnie and the playing card scene).

    You get the impression these days that Saddam was running a peaceful country and we just went in there to take over the oil wells. That IS what you believe, right? There was no zero option back then either. Not doing something leads to consequences too.

    No one thinks that Saddaam was a nice guy. No one thinks there is a pristene solution. 3 years ago 80+% of Iraqis said things were better with the US there. Great! But today that number is down to 50%. Maybe a Darfur poll would make that look good.
    So, today, you can no longer use the -Sadaam helped OBL do 9/11- argument. You can no longer use the -WMD- argument. You can no longer use the -Things are better- argument. Even trying to use the -democracy in the ME- argument is beginning to fail.

    So why are we there? Some leftists believe we were there for the oil. I hope we don’t need to review the PNAC/NeoCon philosophy of hegemony and Plutocracy, the oil was how the Iraqis were going to pay for their freedom. Remember? Guaranteeing we have future control over a big piece of the oil pie as part of the current Iraqi legislative agenda is no longer a side benefit to keep our economic superiority, it’s to pay for this fiasco.

    Further, you say there was “no zero option” at the time. Of course there was. w did not have to invade; the evidence was extremely weak and his entire staff worked hard to make sure that the presented data only supported what w wanted as his policy. “No regard to truth”

    Sometimes you have have to fire the coach (and his staff), withdraw, and regroup. This is that time.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 13, 2007 12:34 PM
    Comment #216408

    AP
    You have no argument from me. Bush has really got thing in a fix for sure.

    d.a.n
    Checked your link on American casualties.
    Very Interesting!

    American Deaths
    Sense War Began 3/19/30 3296
    Sense “Mission Accomplished” 5/1/03 3157
    Sense Saddam Captured 12/13/04 2835
    Sense Handover 6/29/04 2437
    Sense Election 1/31/05 1859
    American Wounded 24476

    And the sad thing is any one of this points was a good time to leave and Bush would have his win and come out of it looking a hell of a lot better than he does now.

    American deaths in Iraq 3296
    American Deaths in Afghanistan 377
    That’s 2919 more killed in Iraq than Afghanistan.
    Why are there more killed in Iraq than Afghanistan, when we’ve been there about 2 years longer? Maybe because Bush has kept is paws off Afghanistan?

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 13, 2007 12:57 PM
    Comment #216417

    (13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?
    Zero: 13%
    0-50,000: 7%
    50,000-144,000: 6%
    145,000: 13%
    146,000-200,000: 22%
    200,000+: 16%
    No opinion/Don’t know: 23%

    DAN,

    38% (=22%+16) say we need more than the current 145,000 troops.

    62% (=13%+7%+6+13%+23%) do NOT vote that we need more than the current 145,000 troops.
    26% (=13%+7%+6%) vote we need LESS troops.
    _________ Read carefully. 62% do NOT vote that we need more than the current 145,000 troops. That’s a fact. Read carefully. Only 38% say we need more than the current 145,000 troops. That’s a fact.”


    You’re wrong! The numbers are off; way off! The question asks “How many troops do you think we should have there?”

    26% say said less than 145,000 troops; 51% said there should be 145,000 to more. And, 23% had No Opinion/Didn’t Know; That’s where the numbers end. You don’t throw the “23% don’t knows” in the “do NOT vote that we need more than the current 145,000 troops.”; b/c, needing more than 145,000 was not the question they were asked. And, you definitely don’t add the “13%” who said 145,000; when that’s how many there was then.

    You are the one the needs to come to grips with this poll; this proves your other poll (from a year ago) is meaningless. These troops are speaking to you and you’re not listening to them. It’s a shame…

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 13, 2007 2:14 PM
    Comment #216419
    But it looks like the Iraqis don’t really care enough to make their country a better place.
    They Do want to make Iraq a better place for their children. It’s just not in the image we might have and they’re doing it violently.
    From the Iraqi on the street all the way up to the President of Iraq, they seem willing to let more of our youngins die to keep them safe. It’s time to tell the Iraqis step up to the plate or they can stew in their own juices.
    You’re absolutely right. It much easier to let someones elses soldiers die than your own. That’s why we must leave, they have no incentive to come to peace as long as we’re there.

    .

    Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 13, 2007 2:36 PM
    Comment #216442

    Let us look at some facts of recent.

    In Anbar province, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders have turned on al-Qaeda. As a result thousands of Sunni recruits are trying to get those jobs available a the police stations. In Ramadi the Sunni police force are fighting along side our troops.

    ABC’s Terry McCarthy in a report on April 3 things are slowly returning to normal. Children are out playing again and shoppers are openly going to market. This all happened from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and Haifa Street (known as “sniper alley”).

    Now, the dims are shooting for immediate troop withdrawal as they say is a mandate. Who last November ran for election on a mandate to return our troops home immediately?

    For those who want to bring our troops home today, tomorrow you can wake up and smell the Islamic jihadists.

    Posted by: tomh at April 13, 2007 4:43 PM
    Comment #216447

    recent facts tom?

    Please provide reputable sources and independent confirmation.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 13, 2007 4:54 PM
    Comment #216465

    The Republicans want to claim things are getting better, but I have seen no mechanism for it staying better. We cannot remain Iraq’s army, yet we are all I see functioning there. The violence has not been stopped altogether. I mean, how do you drop a fricking bridge if the security’s so good?

    I’m sick and tired of being handed the same BS about things getting better that I have been handed for the last four years while things got progressively worse.

    Please, people. Step back and realize that our goals have not been met, and that all we are doing is serving as an excuse for all sides to avoid taking responsibility for what they are doing to their own country. We’re their excuse to fail, just as we were the South Vietnamese’s excuse. That’s what killed them in the end, Jack. They had their own tanks and aircraft. They could have won if the country had enough will to repel them. American cannot make the mistake time and again of putting itself in the unsustainable position of supporting weak, divided governments.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 13, 2007 6:35 PM
    Comment #216488
    ragdimly wrote: (13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there? Zero: 13% 0-50,000: 7% 50,000-144,000: 6% 145,000: 13% 146,000-200,000: 22% 200,000+: 16% No opinion/Don’t know: 23% You’re wrong! The numbers are off; way off! The question asks “How many troops do you think we should have there?>”
    rahdigly,

    Calm down.
    You can’t think straight if you get too excited.
    Screaming “You’re wrong!”, “You’re wrong!”, “You’re wrong!” is not proof.

    ragdigly wrote: 26% say said less than 145,000 troops;
    True.
    ragdigly wrote: And, 23% had No Opinion/Didn’t Know;
    True.

    ________________
    But it is also true that 62% (=13%+7%+6%+23%) do NOT say 145,000 or more troops are needed.
    ________________
    That’s a fact.
    Try to disprove it.
    Try to disprove that 62% is not equal to (=13%+7%+6%+23%)
    WHERE troops voted (how many troops are needed):

    • 0-50,000: 7%

    • 50,000-144,000: 6%

    • 145,000: 13%

    • No opinion/Don’t know: 23%

    See, only 38% (=22%+16%) believe we need MORE than the current 145,000 troops.
    You can whine and holler about it all ya want, but those are the facts based on the poll you provided.

    ragdigly wrote: You are the one the needs to come to grips with this poll;
    rahdimly,

    No you need to calm down and look at everthing written.
    What I wrote is completely factual.
    If it weren’t, you would have explicitly show the exact nature of the discrepancy.
    Instead, you are grasphing as straws.

    Again, the poll you provided corroborates the poll I provided.
    Most troops (62%) and Americans do NOT say 145,000 or more troops are needed.
    You can NOT disprove it from the fact of your own poll, which is what is distressing you so.
    Pay close attention:
    (Zero troops needed: 13%)
    + (0-to-50,000 troops: 7%)
    + (50,000-144,000: 6% )
    + (No opinion/Don’t know: 23%)
    _______________________________
    = 62% do NOT say 145,000 or more troopos are needed.

    Get the picture?
    Or do you want us to draw you a picture.
    That’s often necessary for the blind party loyalists.
    They can’t see too good with those party blinders on.

    ragdigly wrote: … this proves your other poll (from a year ago) is meaningless. These troops are speaking to you and you’re not listening to them. It’s a shame…
    Yes, the blind party loyalism is a shame.

    Try taking our your partisan blinders, and you’ll see better.

    Again, thanks for the poll results you provided corroborating the poll results I showed above.
    Most troops and Americans want less troops.
    Not more.
    62% do NOT say 145,000 or more troops are needed.
    Just concentrate on that one fact and see if you can disprove it … you can’t.
    And it’s your poll results.
    The troops and most Americans want our troops to come home.
    But not you.
    Not Bush.
    Not McCain.
    Not a lot of pro-occupationists.
    They are willing to sacrifice our troops lives, no matter how many it takes, to save face and win THEIR war, and occupy Iraq indefinitely.
    Bush, and his co-blunderers shouldn’t be using our troops for nation-building, being the world police, or refereeing the Iraqis’ civil war.
    Yet, you disagree with the majority of the troops and Americans?
    How arrogant.

    You are quite cavalier with our troops lives.
    How brave of you.
    You so badly want to believe the troops want to be there, but it is so ridiculously false, it is laughable.
    What frustrates you no end is your inability to prove your case.
    Face it.
    You are wrong.
    Just admit it.
    Likewise with Bush, McCain, and his other co-blunderers.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2007 8:30 PM
    Comment #216492

    CORRECTION: 62% (=13%+7%+6%+13%+23%) do NOT say more than 145,000 troops are needed.
    WHERE:
    Zero: 13%
    0-50,000: 7%
    50,000-144,000: 6%
    145,000: 13%
    146,000-200,000: 22%
    200,000+: 16%
    No opinion/Don’t know: 23%

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2007 9:02 PM
    Comment #216495

    Dave

    The tribal chieftans were recorded by the writings of Lt. Col. David Kilcullen

    Terry McCarthy as I stated above is the other source.

    Posted by: tomh at April 13, 2007 9:21 PM
    Comment #216498

    Dave1-20-2009

    They Do want to make Iraq a better place for their children. It’s just not in the image we might have and they’re doing it violently.

    I don’t think the Iraqis care if their country is a better place or not as long as they get their bowl of goat stew everyday. If they cared they’d be getting off their collective butts and helping put down the insurgents that’s causing all the trouble.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 13, 2007 10:09 PM
    Comment #216506

    We must win in iraq or the next battle field in a mall near you. it is not if we quit we can’t quit the islamist won’t let us quit.

    the dance is on and someone must pay the fiddler!

    no end until one side or the other is dead!

    Posted by: im at April 13, 2007 10:51 PM
    Comment #216527
    In Anbar province, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders have turned on al-Qaeda. As a result thousands of Sunni recruits are trying to get those jobs available a the police stations.

    In other words, even if we leave now, al Qaeda cannot operate from Iraq.

    Posted by: American Pundit at April 14, 2007 1:00 AM
    Comment #216552
    im wrote: We must win in iraq or the next battle field in a mall near you. it is not if we quit we can’t quit the islamist won’t let us quit.
    Fear mongering.

    Regardless of Iraq, terrorists are after us already.
    Remember 9/11 ?
    If anything, the OCCUPATION of Iraq is fueling terrorism.
    Why are we still in Iraq?
    Oil perhaps?
    To have yet another base in the Middle East?
    Is it really for Israel’s benefit?
    We’ve sacrificed enough of our troops to give Iraq a chance.
    If Iraq can’t take it from their now, they never will.
    If Iraqis want to keep killing each other, that’s their problem.

    But, even if the “they’ll follow us here” and “We must win in iraq or the next battle field in a mall near you” fear mongering was justified … then perhaps we should secure our wide-open borders and ports, eh?

    See, the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    That’s why these arguments for continuing the OCCUPATION of Iraq make no sense.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 9:30 AM
    Comment #216555

    >>I don’t think the Iraqis care if their country is a better place or not as long as they get their bowl of goat stew everyday. If they cared they’d be getting off their collective butts and helping put down the insurgents that’s causing all the trouble.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 13, 2007 10:09 PM

    Ron,

    This is the difference between what we, in America, called the Revolutionary War for freedom, and the trumped-up ‘war for democracy’ that Cheney/Bush foisted upon Iraq…

    Posted by: Marysdude at April 14, 2007 9:56 AM
    Comment #216559

    im
    We must win in iraq or the next battle field in a mall near you. it is not if we quit we can’t quit the islamist won’t let us quit.

    That’s the same story I heard about Vietnam. “We must win in Vietnam or we’ll be fighting them in San Francisco.” We didn’t win in Vietnam, and we didn’t fight them in San Francisco.

    I only have one question for ya. Do you value Bush’s ‘Stay the Course’ policy more than
    the lives of our boys and girls in Iraq?

    I’d like to see us leave Iraq with a victory as much or more than anyone. And I sure do wish I could say for sure that we’re gonna to win.
    But reality is a very cold hard thing. And the reality is unless we have a complete overhaul of policy over there we aint gonna win.
    Our youngins had the war won. Saddam was gone. Remember? “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” But that victory was taken away from them by their Commander in Chief when he decided to go “Nation Building” and failed to make sure he had enough troops and the right folks to get the job done.
    There was 139 killed removing Saddam from power. Bush’s insistence on ‘staying the course’ has cost another 3157 lives of our kids.
    Right now barring a real miracle I don’t see us coming out of this with even a draw.
    Do ya really want to see another 3157 of our youngsters die before someone in DC has the guts to say enough lets get our boys and girls outta there? I sure as hell don’t.
    I don’t trust the Islamist anymore than I trust the Communist. And I can’t say for sure that we won’t be attacked again. Even if we stay in Iraq. But you can’t say for sure we will be attacked if we leave.
    All I know is something has to give over there. And neither the White House or Congress are doing anything to solve the situation. Instead they’re engaging in political power games with the lives of this countries children on the line. And while they’re playing these games our youngins continue to die.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 14, 2007 11:24 AM
    Comment #216566

    Dave

    Iraq in 2002 has Saddam in power. He is working to support terrorism, very openly in Israel, more covertly other places. He hates the U.S. and has been rash enough to try to assassinate a former U.S. president. He is offering rewards for anyone who can shoot down a U.S. airplane.

    Sanctions are in place. Saddam is not much hurt becuase he is cheating through the oil for food program, but Iraqi people are suffering. The “Arab street” is enraged by picturs of Iraqi children dying w/o medicine (Saddam makes sure they do not get it and pictures are taken). Estimates are that 50,000 Iraqi children die each year. This is a high estimate (like the Lancet) but it enjoys considerable currency.

    Saddam says he does not have WMD. He probably believe he DOES, but in fact he does not. He has however maintained the expertise to create them.

    Sanctions are weakening. The official reasons for sanctions are disappearing. If Saddam does not have WMD (and he does not) He will be off sanctions, at least in a pracical sense. If this happens, the man who attacked four of his neigbors and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens will be free. His two sons are perhaps even worse and they are next in line to have the revenue of the 2nd largest oil fields on earth.

    This is what you have. Maybe this choice is better

    Posted by: Jack at April 14, 2007 12:06 PM
    Comment #216581

    Jack-
    The terror he support was regional stuff, not the crap that hit us on 9/11. He was contained, and we had other priorities. Namely the guy who really did attack us.

    His two sons would have been at each other’s throats, and the dividing of power between them would have made it much more difficult for them to sustain their power. Saddam would have left big shoes to fill, and sons of dictators are rarely so careful with power as their fathers were.

    Defeating Saddam was ridiculously easy, which should indicate to you just what his capacity was to cause trouble. Why did we divert our attention from the real threat to handle somebody whose but we had already kicked?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2007 2:04 PM
    Comment #216587

    Dan,

    “62% (=13%+7%+6%+23%) do NOT say 145,000 or more troops are needed. That’s a fact. Try to disprove it. Try to disprove that 62% is not equal to (=13%+7%+6%+23%)”

    Ok, ok, I’ll disprove it; don’t get your panties in a bunch. In my response, to your comment, I clearly responded to your poll (3/06) of how “72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq” and “25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.” Then, I showed you a poll (9 months later) of the troops showing that 51% favored the same amount of troop levels to more; which trumped your poll from over a year ago in regards to “troops leaving Iraq” and “immediate withdrawl”. Clear as day!

    And yet, you somehow managed to twist and spin the poll to add up to 62% “do NOT say more than 145,000 troops are needed”?!!!! That’s not the original argument and not what the troops are saying. It’s about how the majority of troops, in that poll, didn’t say they wanted immediate withdrawl or leaving Iraq. Period! And, your 62% is wrong anyway b/c (again) you’re using the 23% that didn’t vote (don’t know/no opinion). You don’t use the don’t knows/no opinions, in any calculation, b/c they “don’t know or have no opinion” on the subject!


    The facts are right there, so take a look at them and maybe (just maybe) it is YOU that should try and “take off the partisan blinders” in order to see things clearly!


    Posted by: rahdigly at April 14, 2007 2:28 PM
    Comment #216592

    Stephen

    He was contained by heavy U.S. force deployment in Saudi (Osama’s big gripe against us, BTW) and weakening UN resolutions. He was increasingly getting around them.

    We know today he had not WMD on hand. If he would have proved that, sanctions would be off. No more containment. The UN did not want to enforce the sanctions it had. Who would have contained him after that. If your answer is the U.S. and its allies, you are in the same place you are today. If your answer is anything else, you do not have containment.

    His capacity to cause trouble was not tied to his capacity to resist our military. Our military can make short work of the conventional forces of most of the countries in the world.

    I worried at the time and worry now about Saudi and the Gulf. If instabilities hit there, we are better off w/o Saddam nearby.

    Historians will debate this for a long time. I believe that our position today in the region, bad as it might be, is stronger than our probable position had we not invaded. In the latter case, we have to expect that sanctions would have been off and Saddam would have been emboldened by another victory by getting the U.S. to back down.

    That is not to say that this is the best possible outcome. We could have made many particular decisions better. But not invading would have left in power and strengthened a man who threatened to harm us and who kept his word in these sorts of things. HE would have been contained only if we contained him, which brings us back to where we are.

    Posted by: Jack at April 14, 2007 2:56 PM
    Comment #216618

    Jack,

    Historians will debate this for a long time. I believe that our position today in the region, bad as it might be, is stronger than our probable position had we not invaded. In the latter case, we have to expect that sanctions would have been off and Saddam would have been emboldened by another victory by getting the U.S. to back down.

    Once again you resort to fantasy and absurdity to defend your posiitons.

    There was a reason that the neighbors of Sadam and most of the world did not support this invasion. It was reckless and stupid. Yes, we removed a problematic Sadam.

    In the Machiavelli world of strategy, often a bait is set out to lure an opponent into a vunerable position. Bush bit, and now he finds himself and us in a weakened position.

    There is no reason to assume sanctions would have been off. Sadam had no military to speak of. If he HAD say attacked Kuwait, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran there WOULD have been immediate and universal reponse, there would have been cooperation and support for the US actions. In fact, luring him into an attack might have been the smart thing to do.

    Like the child removing his hand from fire only to place it in the path of a buzzsaw, we have removed our neighbors hand from the FEAR of a fire and placed our hand in a very real buzzsaw.

    People often criticized Roosevelt for not entering WWII earlier. Pearl Harbor was a result. Would the resolve had been the same without Pearl Harbor? (I will not go into the stupidity of harboring the fleet there) Difficult to say, but not likely. Roosevelt understood that there needed to be strong support for involvement of the U.S. That did not prevent

    Please don’t take this and compare Pearl Harbor to 9-11, there was, is, and never will be a valid connection between Iraq and 9-11.

    What I am saying is preempting Sadam was strategically stupid. Instead of giving us advantage in the middle east our influence has diminished. China is rising, in part, because of this stupidity.

    The saddest part of this is the erosion on our ability to deal with bad actors like Bin Laden. We will find little support if it becomes necessary to deal with Pakistan, that wasn’t the case prior to our stupid adventure in Iraq.

    Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2007 9:33 PM
    Comment #216667

    Gergle

    Why were sanctions on? If the UN judged the condidtions had changed, they would remove sanctions. We now know Saddam had no WMD at the time of the war. If he had proved that, the basis for sanctions are gone.

    We also now know that Saddam was already effectively subverting sanctions. One of the reasons many did not support his ouster was that he was making people rich.

    If we want to judge the past by the standards of what we know now, we must be consistent.

    Re Pearl Harbor - Roosevelt did not consider an attack on Hawaii a real possibility. We were lucky that our naval forces were not completely crippled by the attack. YOu are right that the attack gave moral certainty, but at the price of the destruction of much of our fleet, loss of the Phillipines, Baton death march etc. We won. Our victory was not inevitable.

    Maybe more preemtion could have saved some of those millions of lives lost.

    Roosevelt DID engage in preemtive war with Germany. We escorted ships to Britain and in fact one of our naval vessels was sunk by a German U-boat while doing it. Thank God Roosevelt did not wait to be attacked.

    Posted by: Jack at April 15, 2007 12:01 PM
    Comment #216683
    Roosevelt DID engage in preemtive war with Germany.

    No, he didn’t. We didn’t declare war on Germany until they declared war on us.

    In any case, President Bush engaged in “preventative” warfare in Iraq, not preemptive warfare.

    A good WWII example of Bush-style preventative warfare is Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese foresaw America as a future threat and struck before it could become imminent.

    Tojo was hung for his preventative war. I wonder what will happen to Bush…

    Posted by: American Pundit at April 15, 2007 1:29 PM
    Comment #216703
    rahdigly wrote: d.a.n … … yet, you somehow managed to twist and spin the poll to add up to 62% “do NOT say more than 145,000 troops are needed”?
    Not true. There was no twisting or spinning.

    OK, let’s try this one more time.
    Perhaps what you need is for someone to draw you a picture?

    62% did NOT vote for more than 145,000 troops (which includes “don’t knows/no opinions”).
    There it is … clear as can be.

    You still haven’t shown how that (above) is false.
    You complain about using “Don’t Knows/No Opinions” as NOT voting for more troops, but the facts is, they didn’t and saying they did NOT vote YES for more troops is still a fact.

    rahdigly wrote: It’s about how the majority of troops, in that poll …
    rahdigly,

    Only 38% of troops want more than the current 145,000 troops.
    That’s not very good.

    Based on this poll (March 2007), 58% of Americans want to leave immediately or within one year.
    I’d lay large bets now that 58% increases drastically in the months to come … especially if we are still in Iraq by Nov-2008.

    rahdigly wrote: The facts are right there, so take a look at them and maybe (just maybe) it is YOU that should try and “take off the partisan blinders” in order to see things clearly!
    Yes the facts are right there. 62% do NOT vote for more than the current 145,000 troops. Only 38% vote for more than the current 145,000 troops. Perhaps the drawing helps you? Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2007 4:14 PM
    Comment #216710

    Thanks AP,

    Jack continues to live in his fantasy of world events, if only this would have happened or this would have happened if this or that.

    Sadam did not admit to a lack of weapons because it is what kept him in power and feared in the Region. It is safe to assume that with what we know now, that Bush would have pressed for invasion, irregardless.

    Looking at what actually happened has always been more instructive to me.

    Adventurism sometimes pays off, Panama, Nicarauga, Colombia, and Granada come to mind. Oops wait… a couple of those have a rise in anti Americanism and Anti-Democracy movements. Blow back is such a Bitch!

    Clinton and Bush1 used coalitions, heavy planning, and overwhelming force as well as politically savvy use of world opinion, like Roosevelt did, and Voila! Good things happened. It’s almost like magic!

    I suspect Bush was told he could take a weakened Sadam like Reagan took Granada, on the cheap. He did. Unfortunately, these morons never thought more than two moves ahead.


    O.K. I’m exagerating. It ain’t that simple or easy.

    Roosevelt resisted more involvement than Churchill pleaded for and instead, pushed Japan in a corner and placed our ships in harm’s way in the Atlantic seeking conflicts. I doubt he strategized over positioning of the fleet at Pearl. The generals knew an attack was possible, and were even tracking carrier movements, but they assumed a less bold move by the Japanese. Roosevelt dangled the bait.


    That was not pre-emptive by any normal stretch of language…even if you use double negatives. As Yogi Berra said, “I didn’t really say everything I said.” He also prophetically offered advice to Bush: “If you don’t know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.”

    Posted by: gergle at April 15, 2007 5:16 PM
    Comment #216738

    Jack-
    Look, we kicked his ass the first time time he tried something funny with us. We could have done so once again, if he gave us the opportunity.

    I don’t see how this war has improved our position over what it would have been at this time had we not invaded, because right now, our army is incapable of fighting any other war, and it is stripping the gears maintaining this one.

    This isn’t a good foreign policy, it’s an obsession, and it’s cost every American dearly, some more dearly than others. It’s time to put an end to this sorry mess before our situation becomes any worse.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 15, 2007 11:33 PM
    Comment #216768

    American Pundit,

    A good WWII example of Bush-style preventative warfare is Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese foresaw America as a future threat and struck before it could become imminent.


    Hum, not that good example, as the Japanese were right in foresawing America as a future threat.
    But Bush’s America were wrong in foresawing Iraq as a future threat.

    Well, except if you consider your leader making a fool of himself being a threat, that is.

    Tojo was hung for his preventative war. I wonder what will happen to Bush…

    Hug for his war by his military industrial complex & BigOil friends?

    Anyway, I didn’t knew Tojo was hung. I always thought he did harakiri…

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 16, 2007 10:04 AM
    Comment #216771

    Jack,

    We know today he had not WMD on hand. If he would have proved that, sanctions would be off. No more containment.

    He released a ton of documentation that was proving he didn’t have WMD anymore. But we didn’t want to believe it. And everybody knows that asking one to prove its own innocency or he will be charged as guilty is a flawed concept.
    It doesn’t take a law degree to knows this.

    The burden of proof should have been on accusators (in this case, the UN), as usual.
    That was the purpose of UN inspections. But some UN members didn’t want to wait for their conclusion.

    Maybe they were afraid about the inspection conclusion. I wonder why they’re not afraid anymore about the same conclusion they get by invading inspecting Iraq themselves? Afterall, if these members could be so wrong about the level of threatness of countries, what about real threating countries???

    Anyway…

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 16, 2007 10:14 AM
    Comment #216772

    Phillip, Tojo shot himself, but did not die. He recovered and was hanged to death after a trial. He accepted his responsibility and is not considered a war criminal in Japan.

    Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2007 10:21 AM
    Comment #216796

    Dan,

    “You still haven’t shown how that (above) is false.”


    Yes I have, my (original) point was that 51% of the troops believe there should be the same amount to more troops. Now, that would trump your poll that showed 72% wanted out of there (within a year). The same amount to more (troops) wouldn’t support your 72% wanting out within a year when this poll was taking over 9 months after your poll. You’re the one that (somehow) fixated on the 145,000 and less; it not about that at all.


    “You complain about using “Don’t Know/No Opinion” as NOT voting for more troops, but the facts is, they didn’t and saying they did NOT vote YES for more troops is still a fact.”


    The “fact” is that “don’t knows/no opinions” don’t count either way (Yes or No). You’re going to have to get over that.

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2007 12:36 PM
    Comment #216852

    D.a.n. and Rahdigly:

    Neither of you is really correct in your arguments.

    D.a.n. is factually correct in his statement, but it is clearly misleading.

    Rahdigly refuses to see a factual statement as factual.

    I think this argument is rather irrelevant myself.

    That 23 percent was the largest fraction of opinion, which was no opinion tells you the poll was not telling you much about anything.

    Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2007 4:59 PM
    Comment #216885
    gergle wrote: Neither of you is really correct in your arguments. D.a.n. is factually correct in his statement, but it is clearly misleading. Rahdigly refuses to see a factual statement as factual.

    Yes, it was intentional.
    Factual, but misleading.
    Just as misleading as rahdigly trying to equate 51% of troops polled wanting the current level of 145,000 (or more) to mean that most troops believe we should remain in Iraq.

    The main point is: Do our troops want to stay in Iraq, or leave now and/or ASAP?
    I believe based on many polls, including the poll results rahdigly provided a link to, that our troops believe it’s time to leave. Some want to leave now, and most want to leave soon.

    Rahdigly is trying to use the 51% wanting the current 145,000 (or more) troops as proof that refutes the Zogby poll (of March 2006; see below) stating that 72% of troops polled think we should leave Iraq.

    Well, it doesn’t, because the 51% wanting current 145,000 (or more) troops does not equate to support for the war or wanting to continue the occupation of Iraq, because that 51% could merely mean that if troops are stuck there anyway, then it shouldn’t be done on the cheap … because doing it on the cheap hasn’t worked and isn’t working.

    So, there is a difference.
    But, for some reason, it appears rahdigly doesn’t want to see anything about ending the occupation of Iraq.
    Well, rahdigly is in for a big disappointment.
    The numbers wanting to leave Iraq (now and/or ASAP) is going to grow larger.
    Most polls show that most Americans want an end to it now and/or ASAP.

    Yes, the “62% did not vote YES” is factual.
    It’s interesting that rahdigly is so bothered by it.
    Why?

    Here is something else interesting from the poll rahdigly linked to:

      (7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?
    • (a) Very likely to succeed 13%

    • (b) Somewhat likely to succeed 37%

    • (c) Not very likely to succeed 31%

    • (d) Not at all likely to succeed 10%

    • (e) No opinion/no answer 8%
    (c) and (d) add up to 41% that don’t think success is likely.
    (c), (d), and (e) add up to 49% that do NOT say success is likely.
    (a) and (b) add up to only half (50%) that believe success is possible.

    Here is another interesting poll. rahdigly probably didn’t want us to see this one:

      (10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
    • (a) Approve 35%

    • (b) Disapprove 42%

    • (c) No opinion 10%

    • (d) Decline to answer 12%
    Wow? Only 35% approve.
    That’s pretty dismal.
    In fact, that’s in the toilet.

    Here is another interesting poll:

      (12) Do you consider the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism that began Sept. 11, 2001, or do you consider it to be an entirely separate military action?
    • (a) Part of the war on terrorism 47%

    • (b) Separate military action 47%

    • (c) No opinion 5%
    So, less than half believe it’s part of the war on terrorism.
    But Bush has been telling us over and over and over that Iraq is the war on terror.

    I think they have already been successful, and it’s time to come home.
    Iraq will have their civil war with or with out us.
    If Iraqis’ want to keep killing each other for no good reason, that’s their own problem.

    • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.
    • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.
    • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified!

    Our troops deserve better.
    It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building, being the world police, and refereeing Iraq’s civil war.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 16, 2007 6:55 PM
    Comment #216907

    “(7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

    (a) Very likely to succeed 13%

    (b) Somewhat likely to succeed 37%

    (c) Not very likely to succeed 31%

    (d) Not at all likely to succeed 10%

    (e) No opinion/no answer 8%


    Dan,

    (c) and (d) add up to 41% that don’t think success is likely.
    (c), (d), and (e) add up to 49% that do NOT say success is likely.
    (a) and (b) add up to only half (50%) that believe success is possible.”


    Again, you’re way off. To use your “calculations”:

    (a) and (b) add up to 50% that DO say success is likely.

    (a),(b), and (d) add up to 58% that do NOT say success is unlikely.


    Get my drift now?!! Using your “logic” and “calculations” I can make the “likely” success numbers even bigger or the “unlikely” success smaller; however, it’s not correct at all! I’ll say this for the last time (and I mean last time), you don’t count No opinion/no answer in one way or the other!

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 16, 2007 8:19 PM
    Comment #216930

    rahdigly,

    Yes, it is appropriate to count “No opinon” as “do NOT say”.
    Like gergle said, it’s factual.
    It’s just aother valid way at looking at the polls.

    In fact, you just did it yourself when you wrote: “(a),(b), and (d) add up to 58% that do NOT say success is unlikely.”

    The main point is that you think most troops are for the continued occupation of Iraq, and the polls don’t show that, no matter how badly you’d like that. What’s more, the poll numbers are going to continue to increase by those that believe it’s time to end the occupation of Iraq.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 16, 2007 10:53 PM
    Comment #216976

    Dan,
    “In fact, you just did it yourself when you wrote: “(a),(b), and (d) add up to 58% that do NOT say success is unlikely.”“


    I know I did it myself; I was using that as an example of what not to do, that’s why I said “according to your calculations”. It’s not correct to use that at all. I know the polls don’t always show a particular situation in the best light; especially, when there’s certain people that will “spin” and “calculate” the poll numbers to make them worse then they are or visa versa. And, by the way, I’m certainly not talking about myself; I can clearly see what’s happening and I’m not going to adjust the poll numbers to make it better or worse. The troops are over there and they will “complete their mission” and it doesn’t matter what the opposition says in the meantime; the “opposition” I’m referring to is the anti-war (american) crowd in addition to the troop’s (real) opposition (islamofascists)! Scary how the two are similar, huh?!!!!

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 17, 2007 7:52 AM
    Comment #216989
    rahdigly wrote: The troops are over there and they will “complete their mission” and it doesn’t matter what the opposition says in the meantime; the “opposition” I’m referring to is the anti-war (american) crowd in addition to the troop’s (real) opposition (islamofascists)! Scary how the two are similar, huh?!!!!
    So you are now comparing those opposed to the continued occupation islamofascists.

    I was wondering how long it would take for the truth to come out.
    What is scary is that sort of nonsense.

    Apparently, rahdigly feels anyone that disagrees with him is anti-American and/or islamofascist.

    If only you realized how ridiculous and extremist such a statement is.

    Thank you for showing us that.

    Look in the mirror. Ironically, you may be what you are accusing others of being.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 9:33 AM
    Comment #217030

    Dan, you didn’t respond to the (ridiculous) “calculations”!! Instead, you tried to accuse me of something completely off the subject. I simply pointed out how they are similiar and how “scary” it was. I don’t feel that anyone who disagrees with me is “anti-American” or “islamoffascist”; though, some of the anti-war/Bush crowd has put themselves in a position where it’s hard to differeniate between the two sometimes. Hey, if the shoe fits; if it doesn’t, then don’t lose you cool over it.


    Posted by: rahdigly at April 17, 2007 11:41 AM
    Comment #217070

    rahdigly
    The troops HAVE accomplished their mission. Saddam is no longer in power. Remember Bushes own words?
    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
    The “Nation Building” is Bush’s mission. I think he needs to go over there and do it.

    If the Heads of State had to the fighting and dying in war, there would be a whole heap fewer of them.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 17, 2007 1:53 PM
    Comment #217080
    rahdigly wrote: The troops are over there and they will “complete their mission” and it doesn’t matter what the opposition says in the meantime; the “opposition” I’m referring to is the anti-war (American) crowd in addition to the troop’s (real) opposition (Islamofascists)! Scary how the two are similar, huh?!!!!
    You just compared “the opposition” to “Islamofascists”.

    You just compared “Americans” opposing the continued occupation of Iraq to “Islamofascists”.

    Wow.
    That’s what you wrote.
    How revealing.

    It’s quite clear now that logical discussion with you ain’t very likely if you would call Americans “Islamofascists” simply because they don’t support the continued occupation of Iraq (which does NOT mean they don’t support the troops). That’s very extreme, but you continue to revel in it within another comment that follows by writing:

    rahdigly wrote:
    some of the anti-war/Bush crowd has put themselves in a position where it’s hard to differeniate between the two sometimes. Hey, if the shoe fits
    Wow.

    Does that also include the U.S. troops that voted that they believe we should leave Iraq now?
    Are you calling our American U.S. troops “Islamofascists” too?
    It appears so, since you said the “American” opposition.

    rahdigly,
    Your statements are so ridiculos and offensive, they don’t even warrant a response.
    While you’re runnin’ around calling other Americans “Islamofascists”, you might want to take a close look in the mirror, because your own statements above reveal a level of repugnant fascism and extremism that rivals few others I’ve ever seen before here at watchblog.

    Thank you for sharing that with us.
    Now we know exactly where you’re coming from.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2007 2:32 PM
    Comment #217314

    Ron Brown,

    “The troops HAVE accomplished their mission. Saddam is no longer in power. Remember Bushes own words? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!The “Nation Building” is Bush’s mission. I think he needs to go over there and do it.”


    Wrong! Everyone knows that the mission is to leave Iraq when they can stand on their own. The troops know it and that’s what they’re doing. So get over it, already.


    Dan,

    “You just compared “the opposition” to “Islamofascists”. You just compared “Americans” opposing the continued occupation of Iraq to “Islamofascists”.”


    Oh please. You want to go around getting bent out of shape over my point that the anti-war crowd and the islamofascist are “similar”, then you go right ahead. Funny how easy it is to get some all riled up over words. As I’ve said before, if the “shoe fits”.


    “Does that also include the U.S. troops that voted that they believe we should leave Iraq now?”

    No. As I’ve said on this blog many (many) times, there’s a difference between dislike and hatred. Some of the anti-war/Bush crowd hate Bush (so bad) that they have (indeed) shown “similarities” with the “islamofascists”. The ones that disagree are (perfectly) fine; they just disagree. The troops (that are against the mission) are not showing any disgrace to the US or any “similarities” with the islamofascists; like the anti-war/Bush crowds have.


    Posted by: rahdigly at April 18, 2007 2:45 PM
    Comment #217315

    Ron, just want to clear something up. When I said “wrong”, I meant to your “this is Bush’s mission” and that “you think he needs to go over there”; not to the “troops accomplished their mission in taking Saddam out of power”, b/c they did (indeed) accomplish that mission.

    Posted by: rahdigly at April 18, 2007 2:52 PM
    Comment #217442
    rahdigly wrote: The troops are over there and they will “complete their mission” and it doesn’t matter what the opposition says in the meantime; the “opposition” I’m referring to is the anti-war (American) crowd in addition to the troop’s (real) opposition (Islamofascists)! Scary how the two are similar, huh?!!!!

    So, let me make sure I understand.
    Anyone who opposes the continued occupation of Iraq part of the “anti-war (American) crowd”, and therefore, and similar to “Islamofascist” ?

    That’s what it sounds like.
    Because you wrote:

    rahdigly wrote:
    “Scary how the two are similar”.

    Hhhnmmmmm m m m … sounds an awful like you are saying that anyone who opposes the continued occupation of Iraq is part of the anti-war (American) crowd, and therefore, and similar to the “Islamofascist”.

    Those are your words.
    Perhaps you mispoke?

    rahdigly wrote: Oh please. You want to go around getting bent out of shape over my point that the anti-war crowd and the islamofascist are “similar”, then you go right ahead.
    I’m not bent out of shape.

    I’m not the one comparing the anti-war (American) group to “Islamofascits”.

    rahdigly wrote: Funny how easy it is to get some all riled up over words. As I’ve said before, if the “shoe fits”.
    Hhhmmmm m m m … so calling people “Islamofascits” is nothing and if it does, then the shoe fits, eh?
  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 19, 2007 12:02 AM
    Comment #218248

    So, if we leave Iraq and it degenrates into ethnic cleansing, are we going to ignore that or are we going to go back in there?

    If we leave Al Queada in control of the oil (petro dollars) and give them a sanctuary, what will the cost be in lives and dollars later on when we will HAVE to face them?

    There are many questions democrats are hiding from and the press is giving them all a BIG pass on the elephant in the room.

    Posted by: john at April 24, 2007 10:05 AM
    Post a comment