withdraw troops?????? - Page 3 - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-28-2007, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

NO... NO THERE'S NOT!

YES....YES THERE IS.

(1) Stabilizing the government in Iraq and minimizing further casualties in Iraq. If we left, terrorist attacks would rapidly multiply leading to an open civil war, and not just terrorist attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

There's not "countless" good reasons for staying! There's already a civil war... where have you been? The hands of time are the ancient beliefs and culture of the indigenous people to the region.

I've been watching Iraq the whole time and thinking, how about you? Where you been? You seem to just not really give a rat's ass about what happens over there. I think that's pretty irresponsible attitude to have. We go and unleash all these violent forces and leave it to destroy them. Could a policy be any more irresponsible and contemptuous of the value of human life than that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

They were killing each other before. Hussein killed them from within when he held the lid on. And they'll be killing each other after we pull out whenever that is!

Maybe, but they'll be doing it more after we leave. More killing is worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

There's a saying about being stuck on stupid. I'm not saying that's you but I am saying your message is.

Your message is stuck on immoral. It's stuck on fuck the Iraqi's. That's your message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

You feel so strongly you sign up to get your head blown off in this quagmire that will end the same either way. Everyone fights a good fight when they don't have to back it up!!!

Is that how it works, top gun? So, I guess anything that YOU want to get done, you have to do it yourself to, right? You want more police on the streets, you got to join the police force. You want someone to stop the genocide in Sudan, you got to go down there and stop them. It's not a rational way to make policy, top gun.

By the way, we do have an all volunteer army.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

As far as the pitifully weak argument that the Dems are wrong for trying to declare victory on every single point this "war" was voted to be used for and bring the guys & gals home... YOU CAN PUT WINGS ON AN PIG... BUT THAT DON'T MAKE IT AN EAGLE!

Yeah, we bring them back when the job is done. You don't bring people back before their job is done.

top gun · 03-28-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

YES....YES THERE IS.

NEO-CON DOUBLE TALK. Start a "war" with a lie and then like General Custer try to prevent anyone from leaving so they appear as the "hawk" protecting the country. It's unfortunate but with polls showing 70% now for a phased redeployment the neo-con's days are numbered. I hope they stay there present course because that way every election cycle there will be less of them!

(1) Stabilizing the government in Iraq and minimizing further casualties in Iraq. If we left, terrorist attacks would rapidly multiply leading to an open civil war, and not just terrorist attacks.

Just last night I attended a "MILITARY FAMILIES AGAINST THE WAR" rally. They of course think of our troops best interest. Quit carrying the water for the civil war factions in Iraq and support our men & women! Try to be honest. Every removed General and leader in Iraq has said they're in a civil war now. Now sure we can keep changing leaders until someone will mouth different words but the fact remains the same. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Terrorist all over the world and instead of concentrating on ones in the United States or ways to keep them out of the United States your plan is to occupy Iraq... probably forever? Sad!

I've been watching Iraq the whole time and thinking, how about you? Where you been? You seem to just not really give a rat's ass about what happens over there. I think that's pretty irresponsible attitude to have. We go and unleash all these violent forces and leave it to destroy them. Could a policy be any more irresponsible and contemptuous of the value of human life than that?

Watching... yeah you seem good at watching and talking about how you can get more Americans killed. Again quit being the water boy for other countries that WANT to do battle with themselves for THEIR countries control. I bet in the American Revolution you were pulling for the French.

Maybe, but they'll be doing it more after we leave. More killing is worse.

And for a third time. I know it's difficult for you but try spending just a moment caring about American troops.

Your message is stuck on immoral. It's stuck on fuck the Iraqi's. That's your message.

Physician heal thy self! It was immoral for the president to lie us into a "war". It was immoral to not spend all of our energy to track down Bin Laden. It was immoral to send our troops to war without proper vehicle & body armor. Like I said to you in previous posts... go over there and embrace the love for Americans yourself. Quit hiding behind brave men and women saying... hey, you go do it!

Is that how it works, top gun? So, I guess anything that YOU want to get done, you have to do it yourself to, right? You want more police on the streets, you got to join the police force. You want someone to stop the genocide in Sudan, you got to go down there and stop them. It's not a rational way to make policy, top gun.

No... you use your brain. That's really the problem Bush and his "STRATEGERY" meaning strategy. You want more police you hire and pay for more police. We can't do anything major in Sudan BECAUSE WE'RE IN YOUR IRAQI QUAGMIRE! Neo-con policy is the first to want to do away with Social Security... Medicare... National health programs... Assistance to children. Yet give you someone else's war and you can't spend of my money quick enough. Thank God this mind set is on the way out.

By the way, we do have an all volunteer army.

Yeah, "THE MILITARY FAMILIES AGAINST THE WAR" thought their children would be here at home doing disaster relief and support rolls in the US. They're thrilled over the vacation in Iraq. Are you aware that there are some entire reserve units that will not show up for deployment? And as far as regular Army... just because you volunteer doesn't mean some right wing lug nut should play fast and easy with your life!

Yeah, we bring them back when the job is done. You don't bring people back before their job is done.

Well put a fork in it because that job is just about done. Let Bush veto the joint resolution for redeployment. Disregard the 70% of AMERICANS for redeployment out of Iraq. Let Bush go even lower than his current 30% approval rating. Run up the death toll a little more and let even more people realize the financial cost... and you guys will be fine in the 08 election... LoL! Bottom line it's getting done. It's just how many casualties your political side is willing to take before it happens. Watch and see...

Алекс · 03-28-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

There are no Iraqis in Iraq. There are however, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni Muslims. It is more of a American concept that factions must combine in a melting pot. We are after a fashion, trying to force our ideals on diverse peoples who have been killing each other for centuries. Perhaps the talk ought to be of allowing the country to form as we were at first, a confederation of independent states.

You must be sitting in YOUR chair watching Fox news. Can you show some proof for these facts? The latest poll I heard of was that 68% of them want us out.

No i don't watch fox news. as far as proof read my earlier post about the poll. I never said Iraqi's want us there i said they thought they had better lives than under Saddam and that most of them don't believe there is a civil war.

top gun · 03-28-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Алекс

No i don't watch fox news. as far as proof read my earlier post about the poll. I never said Iraqi's want us there i said they thought they had better lives than under Saddam and that most of them don't believe there is a civil war.

Still dahermit got you on all those points! And it sure sounds like a FOX news report to me... the station for Republicans, by Republicans... LoL!

Still if the Iraqis don't want us there it doesn't really matter whether it's better now than with Hussein or not ... they still don't want us there.

And of course they don't think there's a civil war. They don't have time to think about it... they're too busy reloading. Besides the Bush administration could tell you that in a civil war one side wears blue and the other side wears grey. There's a lot of cannons and I think some Indians in there somewhere.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-29-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

NEO-CON DOUBLE TALK. Start a "war" with a lie and then like General Custer try to prevent anyone from leaving so they appear as the "hawk" protecting the country. It's unfortunate but with polls showing 70% now for a phased redeployment the neo-con's days are numbered. I hope they stay there present course because that way every election cycle there will be less of them!

Neo-con double talk my ass. I'm not a neo-con and I used no double talk. You are unable to show my argument is illogical, while I have shown that yours is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

Just last night I attended a "MILITARY FAMILIES AGAINST THE WAR" rally. They of course think of our troops best interest. Quit carrying the water for the civil war factions in Iraq and support our men & women! Try to be honest.

The conversation is over. Your commentary is the one that is dishonest. Your political comments are wrong and are based upon the premise of "fuck the Iraqi's, bring the troops home." You are unable to argue against this, and you are unable to argue civilly, so you have to start getting nasty and imply that I am dishonest. Whether or not you see the flaws in your reasoning is one thing, but your failure to be civil is very disappointing and the honesty comment you make reveals a dishonest and irrational line of thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

Watching... yeah you seem good at watching and talking about how you can get more Americans killed. Again quit being the water boy for other countries that WANT to do battle with themselves for THEIR countries control. I bet in the American Revolution you were pulling for the French.

Another personal attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

Maybe, but they'll be doing it more after we leave. More killing is worse.

And for a third time. I know it's difficult for you but try spending just a moment caring about American troops.

Another personal attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

No... you use your brain. That's really the problem Bush and his "STRATEGERY" meaning strategy. You want more police you hire and pay for more police. We can't do anything major in Sudan BECAUSE WE'RE IN YOUR IRAQI QUAGMIRE! Neo-con policy is the first to want to do away with Social Security... Medicare... National health programs... Assistance to children. Yet give you someone else's war and you can't spend of my money quick enough. Thank God this mind set is on the way out.

Rude comment there. I'll allow the mod team to deal with you. Feel free to ignore my comments. I have no time for people who are so unable to justify their beliefs that they have to go on childish personal attacks.

FRYandBENDER · 03-29-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

There are no Iraqis in Iraq. There are however, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni Muslims. It is more of a American concept that factions must combine in a melting pot. We are after a fashion, trying to force our ideals on diverse peoples who have been killing each other for centuries. Perhaps the talk ought to be of allowing the country to form as we were at first, a confederation of independent states.

Hell yeah. That is probably the best idea I've heard of so far. I think they might have a plan like that in mind, or at least someone has said something about the possibility on the news or something.

You must be sitting in YOUR chair watching Fox news. Can you show some proof for these facts? The latest poll I heard of was that 68% of them want us out.

This is from ABC.

Quote:

A Better Life
Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results

Analysis
By Gary Langer
ABCNEWS.com

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

Worries exist — locally about joblessness, nationally about security — boosting desires for a "single strong leader," at least in the short term. Yet the first media-sponsored national public opinion poll in Iraq also finds a strikingly optimistic people, expressing growing interest in politics, broad rejection of political violence, rising trust in the Iraqi police and army and preference for an inclusive and democratic government.

More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated.

As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now (although most also say they should stay for the time being); and relatively few express confidence in those forces, in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, or in the Iraqi Governing Council.

These results are from an ABCNEWS poll conducted among a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country from Feb. 9-28. Part of ABC's weeklong series, Iraq: Where Things Stand, marking the first anniversary of the war, the poll was co-sponsored with ABC by the German broadcasting network ARD, the BBC and the NHK in Japan, with sampling and field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England.

The poll finds that 78 percent of Iraqis reject violence against coalition forces, although 17 percent — a sixth of the population — call such attacks "acceptable." One percent, for comparison, call it acceptable to attack members of the new Iraqi police.

There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it's 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds. Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the south of the country, as well as in the Kurdish north.

U.S.-led invasion: All Arabs Kurds
Was right 48% 40% 87%
Was wrong 39 46 9

Liberated Iraq 42% 33% 82%
Humiliated Iraq 41 48 11

Presence of coalition forces:
Support 39% 30% 82%
Oppose 51 60 12

Attacks on coalition forces:
Acceptable 17% 21% 2%
Unacceptable 78 74 96

Personal Lives

On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.

Again there are regional and ethnic differences. In the Kurdish north, 70 percent say their lives overall are better than before the war; in the south, 63 percent. That declines to 54 percent in the central region, and falls under half — to 46 percent — in the greater Baghdad area, home to more than a quarter of Iraqis.

How Iraqis See Their Lives Overall
How things are going today: All North South Central Baghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32
Compared to a year ago, before the war:
Better 56% 70% 63% 54% 46%
Same 23 15 21 22 31
Worse 19 13 13 23 23
How they'll be a year from now:
Better 71% 83% 74% 70% 63%
Same 9 4 6 10 16
Worse 7 1 4 9 10
Locally, unhappiness is highest by far with the availability of jobs (69 percent say it's bad) and the supply of electricity (64 percent negative). Local schools are rated positively (by 72 percent), and smaller majorities give positive ratings to the availability of basic household goods and the adequacy of local crime protection. About half give positive ratings to the availability of medical care, clean water and household goods beyond the basics, and to local government.

Iraqis divide in their rating of the local security situation now, but strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war. However, for some, local security clearly is a great concern; 22 percent call it the single biggest problem in their lives, more than any other mention ("no job" is second, 12 percent). Local security concerns peak in greater Baghdad, where they're cited by 36 percent as the top problem, compared to a low of 8 percent in Kurdistan.

Notably, across the country, no more than 26 percent say any of these conditions are worse now than a year ago; in each about four in 10 or more say things are better; and in each sizable majorities — mostly three-quarters — expect things to improve over the next 12 months.

There's political danger, of course, if these expectations go unmet.

Ratings of Specific Local Conditions
Today Compared to prewar Expectations 1-yr.
Good Bad Better Worse Same Better Worse Same
Schools 72% 26 47% 9 41 74 3 14
Household basics 56 41 47 16 35 76 3 10
Crime protection 53 44 50 21 26 75 4 11

Medical care 51 47 44 16 38 75 3 12
Clean water 50 48 41 16 40 75 4 13
Local gov't 50 38 44 16 29 69 4 12
Additional goods 49 46 44 17 35 75 3 10
Security 49 50 54 26 18 74 5 10

Electricity 35 64 43 23 32 74 5 11
Jobs 26 69 39 25 31 73 4 11

Security

While less of a local issue for many Iraqis, security at the national level is a vast concern; the public's top overall priority, by a huge margin, is "regaining public security in the country." Sixty-four percent give it "first priority" for the next 12 months; out of a dozen issues tested, no other even breaks into double digits.

Combining first, second and third priorities produces a more complete list: Eighty-five percent mention security in one of those slots; 55 percent, rebuilding the infrastructure; 30 percent, holding national elections; 30 percent, "ensuring that people can make a decent living," and about as many, "reviving the economy." Last on the list: "Dealing with members of the previous government," cited as a priority by only 2 percent.

National Priorities
First, second or third priority* First priority
Regaining public security 85% 64%
Rebuilding the infrastructure 55 7
Holding elections for national gov't 30 8
Ensuring that people can make a decent living 30 4
Reviving the economy 28 3
Regaining Iraqi governance 17 3
Ensuring that religious ideals are followed 16 3
Increasing oil production 13 2
Rebuilding the education system 10 1
Ensuring that Iraq could not be attacked from the outside 7 1
Giving people more say in their communities 3 1
Dealing with members of the previous government 2 1
*(Up to three answers accepted)

Coalition Forces

As noted, 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces — but that doesn't mean most want them withdrawn immediately, likely because of security concerns. Fifteen percent of Iraqis say the forces should leave the country now; by contrast, 36 percent say they should remain until a new government is in place; 18 percent, until security is restored.

How Long Should Coalition Forces Remain?
Until Iraq gov't is in place 36%
Until security is restored 18
Leave now 15
Six months or more 10
Few months 8

Just over three-quarters of Iraqis — 77 percent — say they personally never have had any encounter with coalition forces. Those who've had such encounters divide on the experience: about half call it a positive encounter; half, negative.

Politics

Politically, the survey finds that Iraqis overwhelmingly want their nation to remain united and centralized — 79 percent say so, compared with 14 percent who prefer a federated group of regional states, and 4 percent who want the country broken into separate nations. Among Iraqi Kurds, federated regional states — but not fully independent ones — are preferred.

Preferences for Iraq's Future Governance
All Arabs Kurds
Unified country, central government in Baghdad 79% 90% 26%
Regional states with a federal government 14 5 58
Divide into separate independent states 4 2 12
There is relatively little support for a religious theocracy — it's low on the list of preferred forms of government.

In one change from the first national poll in Iraq by Oxford Research International last fall, more now call for a "single strong Iraqi leader" — 47 percent say one will be needed a year from now, up from 27 percent previously. That's more than say "an Iraqi democracy" will be needed, now 28 percent (essentially unchanged).

This interest in a strong leader (not necessarily an undemocratic one) seems based in security concerns. In an open-ended follow-up, references to "freedom" dominate support for democracy, while those who express support for a single strong leader are more apt to cite the need for security and order in their country.

Iraq's Needs for Governance
In 1 year In 5 years
Single strong Iraqi leader 47% 35%
Iraqi democracy 28 42
Government of religious leaders 10 10
Group of strong Iraqi leaders 3 3
Government of experts/managers 2 2
Iraqi Governing Council 2 *
U.N. transition government 1 1
Government of Iraqi military leaders 1 *
Coalition Provisional Authority 1 1

In another question, without a time frame mentioned, democracy wins more support than two other options — a strong leader, but one who rules "for life"; or an Islamic state. Forty-nine percent choose democracy, 28 percent a "strong leader" and 21 percent an Islamic state.

Preferred Political System
Democracy 49%
Strong leader "for life" 28
Islamic state 21

As noted, more Iraqis express interest in politics — 54 percent, up from 39 percent in November — and 31 percent say their interest in politics has increased in the past year, three times the number who say it's decreased. Women are more apt than men to express interest in politics, though it's up among both groups.

Fragmentation

But other results suggest a level of political fragmentation that may challenge the country's political development, and throws into some question the notion of early elections. Despite interest in a strong leader, six in 10 Iraqis can't name a single national leader they trust (though even more can't name one they specifically mistrust).

Sixty-one percent express little or no trust in political parties, and nearly seven in 10 don't identify themselves with any party. The only parties that emerge with more than minimal support are either Islamist or Kurdish; respondents named more than 25 individual parties, but most had less than 1 percent support. (All were volunteered in response to an open-ended question.)

Here is the link to the whole thing.

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Iraqis Report Better Postwar Life

FRYandBENDER · 03-29-2007, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

And do you live in Iraq either? What makes you think they're so happy.

Personally, I think the decision to withdraw troops should not be up to the coalition governments. If Iraq is a free and sovereign state as is claimed, then the government of Iraq should be deciding whether western troops should stay or leave. Their plan is to send coalition troops home as and when they have trained Iraqi army forces to replace them, so we should support that.

That's a good point/idea too.

top gun · 03-29-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Neo-con double talk my ass. I'm not a neo-con and I used no double talk. You are unable to show my argument is illogical, while I have shown that yours is.

No need for swearing. Actually I'm showing complete control of this argument. Any position can be deemed logical by its composer. Furthermore all I'm doing is highlighting the well publicized neo-con line that you are espousing. I fear you may be running from your own argument once forced to look at it.

The conversation is over. Your commentary is the one that is dishonest. Your political comments are wrong and are based upon the premise of "fuck the Iraqi's, bring the troops home." You are unable to argue against this, and you are unable to argue civilly, so you have to start getting nasty and imply that I am dishonest. Whether or not you see the flaws in your reasoning is one thing, but your failure to be civil is very disappointing and the honesty comment you make reveals a dishonest and irrational line of thinking.

I'll take that as a surrender if you like but I don't believe I'm calling you dishonest. You believe in a failed policy and you believe we should keep trying no matter how much it costs or how many brave American soldiers die. I draw from that that you are more concerned about Iraqis than Americans. Sorry... that's what I see in your position... and please don't cuss. Swearing demonstrates loss of control.

Another personal attack.

Again I'm just trying to get you to see that our troops deserve precedent in everyone's mind. I used the "French" analogy because the French helped the Colonists in the Revolutionary war even though it wasn't their war. Just some historical perspective not meant to be a slam.

Another personal attack.

I'm sorry... I wish your responses didn't lead me here again & again. I go where I'm taken. Our men & women are DIEING because our president didn't understand the region. That's his JOB! It's just as bad in my mind to be carrying the water for him. Maybe I should have put it that way. It still means the same though.

Rude comment there. I'll allow the mod team to deal with you. Feel free to ignore my comments. I have no time for people who are so unable to justify their beliefs that they have to go on childish personal attacks.

I guess rude is in the eye of the beholder... . I'm being rude to the president's failed policy and lack of any understanding of the region that's for sure. I answer your own question as to why the US doesn't have a larger presence in Sudan. And you've already said above, "I'm not a neo-con" so my comments on their disservice to our country shouldn't affect you in anyway.

And I do thank God the tide has changed and the VAST majority of people are against the occupation in Iraq and the neo-con strangle hold on our country has been broken. The Moderators would have no problem with that. It's just honest heartfelt opinion... without any cussing by the way.

Remember what Albert Einstein said... Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results! Is this statement in conflict with the "Stay the course" argument? I think so.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-29-2007, 12:03 PM

@ topgun,

Your argument is that you don't think the Iraqi's lives are worth saving. Your defense for your argument is to make personal attacks. You have failed.

WEB

Алекс · 03-29-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by top gun

Still dahermit got you on all those points! And it sure sounds like a FOX news report to me... the station for Republicans, by Republicans... LoL!

Still if the Iraqis don't want us there it doesn't really matter whether it's better now than with Hussein or not ... they still don't want us there.

And of course they don't think there's a civil war. They don't have time to think about it... they're too busy reloading. Besides the Bush administration could tell you that in a civil war one side wears blue and the other side wears grey. There's a lot of cannons and I think some Indians in there somewhere.

I don't watch fox news i'm not a republician and while i'm at it i'm not a democrat. And incase you don't know the difinition of a civil war here you go:

Quote:

A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.

Tell me how many of these criteria can you count in Iraq?