Plurality Now Favor Leaving Iraq

[true_blue_bill]

And I believe something like 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, too

 

 

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13414

 

- More adults in the United States believe the coalition effort should come to an end, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 37 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should enact an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, up six points since June.

 

In addition, 30 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. military should stay the course, while 26 per cent suggest a gradual withdrawal of soldiers.

 

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 2,741 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 20,600 troops have been wounded in action.

 

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

 

On Sept. 30, the Washington Post reported that, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, White House chief of staff Andrew Card attempted to persuade Bush to fire defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the 2004 presidential election, and replace him with former U.S. state secretary James Baker.

 

On Oct. 1, Rumsfeld said his relationship with national leaders has not been affected, adding, "They don’t seem to pay a lot of attention to it, mostly you do. That’s all you (reporters) do is read these books, you ought to

[billsfanone]

Let the animals kill each other.

[true_blue_bill]

Let the animals kill each other.

801387[/snapback]

Says the smiley face!

[/dev/null]

That poll might be meaningful if foreign policy was like American Idol or Survivor.

 

What's the phone number to vote America off the island?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That poll might be meaningful if foreign policy was like American Idol or Survivor.

 

What's the phone number to vote America off the island?

801409[/snapback]

 

We live in a democracy. Foreign policy is like American Idol or Survivor, by definition.

 

The problem is that people generally put more thought into American Idol than they do foreign policy.

[/dev/null]

We live in a democracy.  Foreign policy is like American Idol or Survivor, by definition.

801411[/snapback]

Actually it's a representative democracy. Those we have elected to represent us formulate the policy. To change the policy we must elect representatives who will change the policy, which may occur within the next month

 

The problem is that people generally put more thought into American Idol than they do foreign policy.

801411[/snapback]

That's what I was hinting at

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Actually it's a representative democracy.  Those we have elected to represent us formulate the policy.  To change the policy we must elect representatives who will change the policy, which may occur within the next month

801417[/snapback]

 

Actually, it hardly matters. Bread and Circuses. Or am I the only one that noticed that New Orleans is "rebuilt" because they spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions getting the Superdome ready for MNF?

[GG]

Actually, it hardly matters.  Bread and Circuses.  Or am I the only one that noticed that New Orleans is "rebuilt" because they spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions getting the Superdome ready for MNF? 

801432[/snapback]

 

Yeah, and the Saints have a winning record!!

 

What's your point?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yeah, and the Saints have a winning record!!

 

What's your point?

801454[/snapback]

 

Bread, dammit! I want my bread!

[/dev/null]

Bread, dammit!  I want my bread!

801458[/snapback]

What about your gubbamint cheeze

[Chilly]

We live in a democracy.  Foreign policy is like American Idol or Survivor, by definition.

 

The problem is that people generally put more thought into American Idol than they do foreign policy.

801411[/snapback]

 

Hell, a lot of that is because many people are incapable of putting more thought into foreign policy, whereas they can relate to American Idol.

 

I'd argue that most people don't understand even an iota of what the democratization process accomplishes when its successful, and aren't capable of looking outside of the normal sources to investigate it.

 

"I'd like to find out more about this whole democracy in the middle east thingamagiggy, I think I'll turn to the always-reliable sources at Fox News to understand it."

 

Most people would walk into a bookstore and have a hard time discerning between different authors and books to the point of being able to find one where someone actually knows what they're talking about.

 

Actually, it hardly matters.  Bread and Circuses.  Or am I the only one that noticed that New Orleans is "rebuilt" because they spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions getting the Superdome ready for MNF? 

801432[/snapback]

 

Go, go PR teams!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What about your gubbamint cheeze

801461[/snapback]

 

I had some...but my chicken jumped out of the pot and ate it...

[GG]

Bread, dammit!  I want my bread!

801458[/snapback]

 

You may have a point. Bread bounces better when slung from a helicopter.

[SilverNRed]

The problem is that people generally put more thought into American Idol than they do foreign policy.

801411[/snapback]

As evidenced by these threads.

[true_blue_bill]

That poll might be meaningful if foreign policy was like American Idol or Survivor.

 

What's the phone number to vote America off the island?

801409[/snapback]

Yup, so true! We went into this thing that way. It was all going to be an easy job. The mob wanted a 'splendid little war' and got it. Let's face it, Saddam had personally flown all four of the planes on 9-11 and he had to be punished!

 

But in all seriousness, staying accomplishes nothing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yup, so true! We went into this thing that way. It was all going to be an easy job. The mob wanted a 'splendid little war' and got it. Let's face it, Saddam had personally flown all four of the planes on 9-11 and he had to be punished!

 

Yeah. It was just that easy.

 

People like you are why people like Mark Foley get elected.

 

But in all seriousness, staying accomplishes nothing.

801492[/snapback]

 

How so? Details, man, details. You're either arguing that leaving improves things, or changes nothing...which means you're arguing that staying either further devolves things or changes nothing. So please, expound. Share with us your insight on how the different options affect Iraqi and US security...

[true_blue_bill]

Yeah.  It was just that easy. 

 

People like you are why people like Mark Foley get elected.

How so?  Details, man, details.  You're either arguing that leaving improves things, or changes nothing...which means you're arguing that staying either further devolves things or changes nothing.  So please, expound.  Share with us your insight on how the different options affect Iraqi and US security...

801498[/snapback]

Ya, it was that easy. Bush stirred up the stupidest among us[American Idol Crowd?] and said we were in mortal danger if we didn't invade. He still says is was a necessary war. LOL, that's funny, and sad. Has he found those WMD under the table he was joking about the same day men died actually looking for them? You remember that joke by the President? Probably not. Mark Foley? Go drink another one. The American people are right, this war was a mistake and those who wanted a war so bad, just to have a war, because it made them feel good at the very least should feel ashamed, but of course they don't. They are happy with the war. Its a war and that just makes them happy.

 

The Iraqis will have their Civil War, we had ours, God bless them, just get our boys out of there.

[Chilly]

This is going to be fun.

 

Ya, it was that easy. Bush stirred up the stupidest among us[American Idol Crowd?] and said we were in mortal danger if we didn't invade.

 

Yeah, he just magically stirred up the support by appealing to stupid, American Idol people?

 

I guess that would explain why the NY Times, Tom Friedman, and others in the "American Idol" crowd supported it, to name a few common agenda-setters in the media.

 

He still says is was a necessary war. LOL, that's funny, and sad. Has he found those WMD under the table he was joking about the same day men died actually looking for them? You remember that joke by the President? Probably not. Mark Foley? Go drink another one.

 

So if you want to debate the President on whether it was a necessary war or not, how about not focusing on WMDs? While the whole WMD thing might HAVE been a non-issue to go to war, that doesn't automatically discredit the war effort.

 

If you want to debate whether or not this war is necessary you have to look at the other effects/consequences of what fighting this war meant.

 

The American people are right, this war was a mistake and those who wanted a war so bad, just to have a war, because it made them feel good at the very least should feel ashamed, but of course they don't. They are happy with the war. Its a war and that just makes them happy.

 

The Iraqis will have their Civil War, we had ours, God bless them, just get our boys out of there.

801501[/snapback]

 

 

lol, they wanted a war because it made them feel good? Yeah, I'm sure the Prez feels happy every time someone dies in Iraq. I don't like the guy and I think he's a phony on a lot of his compassionate conservativeism junk, but jesus man, do you really think that war makes him feel good?

 

If you want to debate whether this war was a mistake or not, it might be helpful to take a look at the Wilsonian era of foreign policy, what we knew of Iraqi civilization and its effects on nation building would be, and other such topics, like the effect of democratization on Middle Eastern and other countries in the world.

 

Oh yeah, and you might also want to look at it from the intelligence we had at the time, since hindsight is 20/20.

 

Now you want us to just leave Iraq? What purpose does that serve, really? At this point whats really necessary is a revamp of our attempt to build democracy in Iraq and strengthen the government there. Just up and leaving is going to do *nothing* for us in the future.

 

The military has done a good job recently of making headway in this issue. I had been critical of them in the past, but I read a great story in the NY Times that provided plenty of encouragement. They are completely reworking their strategy on the ground in post-war Iraq, and it had many, many positives.

[chicot]

Supposedly the US is only going to be in Iraq for as long as the Iraqis want them there. If that is the case, the obvious thing to do is to hold a referendum on whether the troops stay or go (or at the very least a definite timetable be set for their departure). Of course, there's always the possibility that that's just so much bs and the US will stay in Iraq for as long as it damn well pleases, whether the Iraqis like it or not.

[true_blue_bill]

This is going to be fun.

Yeah, he just magically stirred up the support by appealing to stupid, American Idol people?

 

I guess that would explain why the NY Times, Tom Friedman, and others in the "American Idol" crowd supported it, to name a few common agenda-setters in the media.

 

If you want to debate whether or not this war is necessary you have to look at the other effects/consequences of what fighting this war meant.

lol, they wanted a war because it made them feel good?  Yeah, I'm sure the Prez feels happy every time someone dies in Iraq.  I don't like the guy and I think he's a phony on a lot of his compassionate conservativeism junk, but jesus man, do you really think that war makes him feel good?

 

If you want to debate whether this war was a mistake or not, it might be helpful to take a look at the Wilsonian era of foreign policy, what we knew of Iraqi civilization and its effects on nation building would be, and other such topics, like the effect of democratization on Middle Eastern and other countries in the world.

 

Oh yeah, and you might also want to look at it from the intelligence we had at the time, since hindsight is 20/20.

 

Now you want us to just leave Iraq?  What purpose does that serve, really?  At this point whats really necessary is a revamp of our attempt to build democracy in Iraq and strengthen the government there.  Just up and leaving is going to do *nothing* for us in the future.

 

801525[/snapback]

 

You obviously were not following the thread. I was mocking the notion that now the American people are stupid, but when we started this mess they were somehow enlightened.

 

I don't have a lot of time right this second, but you are wrong about the NYTimes. Friedman may have supported this fiasco, but the Times editorial board did not. Judith Miller obvioulsy did also, but she is another story. And Wilson's foreign policy doen'st help us on this war now. Sure it adds insight into how the nation was coupled together but so what? I think you are simply trying to sound pedanic. And does a president want to wage war? Did Bush? If you think people don't enjoy war on some level then the study of human history has been lost on you. You see his Saddam trophy? How much fun he had being the 'Wartime President.' Ya, he wanted a war to make himself feel tough. Go listen to some country music songs that were written before the war and how this was all about revenge, then tell me people don't enjoy war. And that comes back to my point, if the people are stupid now for wanting to leave as a previous poster said, then they were just as stupid during the rush to war in 2003. Have a good day

[UConn James]

Now you want us to just leave Iraq?  What purpose does that serve, really?  At this point whats really necessary is a revamp of our attempt to build democracy in Iraq and strengthen the government there.  Just up and leaving is going to do *nothing* for us in the future.

 

The military has done a good job recently of making headway in this issue.  I had been critical of them in the past, but I read a great story in the NY Times that provided plenty of encouragement.  They are completely reworking their strategy on the ground in post-war Iraq, and it had many, many positives.

801525[/snapback]

 

The alternative is that staying there also "is going to do *nothing* for us in the future."

 

My brother was a hoo-rah Bush-Great Republican from the start; Air Force Raven Team --- he has been everywhere, done everything from crawling down sewers in Kuwait to guarding Laura's Bush's shoes down to Crawford. Loves the military. But last night, his words: "This is worse than Vietnam. These people [the Iraqis] will never get their sh-- together." To which I replied, "Well then, in the future you better watch how you vote."

 

The Maliki gov't has been craptacular, even given the givens. We are losing time fast.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The alternative is that staying there also "is going to do *nothing* for us in the future."

 

My brother was a hoo-rah Bush-Great Republican from the start; Air Force Raven Team --- he has been everywhere, done everything from crawling down sewers in Kuwait to guarding Laura's Bush's shoes down to Crawford. Loves the military. But last night, his words: "This is worse than Vietnam. These people [the Iraqis] will never get their sh-- together." To which I replied, "Well then, in the future you better watch how you vote."

 

The Maliki gov't has been craptacular, even given the givens. We are losing time fast.

801585[/snapback]

 

The way I see it, we have one of two options in this situation:

 

1) Stay with the hope that eventually this sectarian violence will stop.

 

2) Leave and let bloodshed solve the issue.

 

Either way, it's not going to be neat or particularly popular with anyone.

[chicot]

Let the animals kill each other.

801387[/snapback]

 

Don't you have a KKK meeting to go to or something?

[chicot]

The way I see it, we have one of two options in this situation:

 

1) Stay with the hope that eventually this sectarian violence will stop.

 

2) Leave and let bloodshed solve the issue.

 

Either way, it's not going to be neat or particularly popular with anyone.

801602[/snapback]

 

But how long do you stick with 1) before you decide it just isn't working?

[UConn James]

The way I see it, we have one of two options in this situation:

 

1) Stay with the hope that eventually this sectarian violence will stop.

 

2) Leave and let bloodshed solve the issue.

 

Either way, it's not going to be neat or particularly popular with anyone.

801602[/snapback]

 

For 1), I just don't have that hope. Like I thought at the time, the president's biggest mistake was in not seperating each group to its own province. What he envisioned as a diverse Iraqi society cannot work for the same reason it wouldn't have in the former Yugoslavia. These people are killing each other.

 

I am resigned to 2) and while it doesn't do us any favors for our standing, it has to be done. This admin stepped in a big pile of sh-- and continue to insist they can't smell anything.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

But how long do you stick with 1) before you decide it just isn't working?

801618[/snapback]

 

I agree completely. We should let them kill each other since they're obviously incapable of liveing together in a civilized nature.

 

</sarcasm>

 

It's the Iraqis' decision. They want us gone, then we'll leave. But don't B word when the death toll shoots through the roof.

[chicot]

I agree completely. We should let them kill each other since they're obviously incapable of liveing together in a civilized nature.

 

</sarcasm>

 

It's the Iraqis' decision. They want us gone, then we'll leave. But don't B word when the death toll shoots through the roof.

801620[/snapback]

 

The death toll may well shoot through the roof initially but then something will emerge and it will subside. All that the occupation is doing is postponing that and quite possibly making things worse.

[UConn James]

The death toll may well shoot through the roof initially but then something will emerge and it will subside.

801627[/snapback]

 

Don't kid yourself. It's ugly now, but it will get uglier and will last for a long time --- retribution killings spiral bigger, not smaller.... I would prefer the version where our kids aren't stuck in the middle of it.

 

Personally, I think the Repubs are purposely blowing this election. They let the Dems come in, bring the war toward some kind of conclusion, they can save face by continuing to call the Dems 'cut and run' and fobbing this admin's poor decisions off by saying they didn't have enough time to make it work. By sacrificing now, they can have a shot at the presidency in '08 by being able to point to mistakes the Dems make when they're in charge of something. B/c let's face it, the presidency is what matters. In turn, Dems will temporarily get to feel like they have some kind of control. The story of the caricatures of American Politics will go on like it has for the last 50+ years. And in the back rooms where macropolitics is decided, the Big Two will clink glasses and enjoy 20-year-old Scotch.

[John Adams]

I'm no expert on the Middle East, but even to the untrained eye, we are not accomplishing the "mission." Iraq is in civil war or whatever the GOP wants to label it. Afghanistan is turning bad.

 

Even the GOP is cracking on their optimism (except for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld).

 

I don't know what we need to do but right now, we're in deep kaka with as I see it, no good way out. Retreat !@#$s Iraq and Afghanistan in the ass. Staying !@#$s them in the ass too.

[Simon]

I don't like the guy and I think he's a phony on a lot of his compassionate conservativeism junk, but jesus man, do you really think that war makes him feel good?

 

I think he is positively giddy about being a "wartime president".

 

Oh yeah, and you might also want to look at it from the intelligence we had at the time, since hindsight is 20/20.

Much of what I've read posits that intelligence communities at the time didn't view Iraq as a threat. Yet this administration ignored these estimates and continually returned them to thier creators, wanting them rewritten so that they would fit the administrations preconceived notions. This supposedly went on for some time until Tenet finally freaked out on them.

[Johnny Coli]

Personally, I think the Repubs are purposely blowing this election.

801638[/snapback]

Actually, I think it's 180 degrees in the other direction. They know the American people don't want to have anything to do with refereeing the Iraq revolution. But, the GOP needs Iraq to use the Cut and Run sloganeering and jingoism for the election, even though many in their own party are for a reasonable, quick withdrawl timeline. If they retain the House and Senate, you will see the gradual drawback as they Cut and Run from their own Stay the Course nonsense. This president and his failed policies are done, and his party knows it. After this election he's useless to them.

[Bungee Jumper]

The death toll may well shoot through the roof initially but then something will emerge and it will subside. All that the occupation is doing is postponing that and quite possibly making things worse.

801627[/snapback]

 

Justify that.

 

I'm not disagreeing (I'm of the opinion that, if we leave Iraq, who knows what'll happen). I just want to know what social and psychological factors are behind your statement.

[MattyT]

Justify that.

 

I'm not disagreeing (I'm of the opinion that, if we leave Iraq, who knows what'll happen).  I just want to know what social and psychological factors are behind your statement.

801711[/snapback]

I'm just guessing, but welcome back?

[Chilly]

You obviously were not following the thread. I was mocking the notion that now the American people are stupid, but when we started this mess they were somehow enlightened.

 

I didn't get that notion from this at all. Actually, most people on this board think that the American people are stupid 24/7.

 

If they did go to war because of a supposed link between AQ and Iraq, they'd be stupid as well.

 

The honest positive reasons to go to war have been overshadowed by the incorrect reasons to go to war. (Of course, the decent arguments against war have been overshadowed by "OMG THERE WERE NO WMDS" crap that has become partisan politics of this war).

 

I don't have a lot of time right this second, but you are wrong about the NYTimes. Friedman may have supported this fiasco, but the Times editorial board did not.  Judith Miller obvioulsy did also, but she is another story. And Wilson's foreign policy doen'st help us on this war now. Sure it adds insight into how the nation was coupled together but so what? I think you are simply trying to sound pedanic.

 

You're right, the NY Times editorial page came out against going to war back in 2001, saying that there were no good short-term options to remove Heussein.

 

However, the NY Times paper as a whole actually supported the Presidents decision, whether on purpose or inadvertantly, during the leadup to war with its coverage of news. This was discussed by the editors here.

 

I'm not trying to sound pedantic. If you claim that we want to Iraq because they had WMDs, and that the war is a mistake, then you need to explain how that decision was a mistake given what we knew at the time, otherwise its a moot point.

 

Now, if you want to say that the intelligence community made a mistake in its pre-Iraq operations, then thats a different story.

 

And does a president want to wage war? Did Bush? If you think people don't enjoy war on some level then the study of human history has been lost on you. You see his Saddam trophy? How much fun he had being the 'Wartime President.' Ya, he wanted a war to make himself feel tough. Go listen to some country music songs that were written before the war and how this was all about revenge, then tell me people don't enjoy war.

 

So a country music song = what the President is feeling?

 

Well, then since the President had Alan Jackson on his iPod, I guess that mean's he is also wasting away again in margaritaville, and he went to Iraq to search for his lost shaker of salt, as Alan Jackson did the song in a 1999 album with Jimmy Buffett.

 

There are plenty of reasons why he'd like to be a wartime President, and why a war helps him as The Prez, I'm not denying that, but to just flat out say he enjoys war is labeling him with emotions that we have no idea if he's truly like or not. Just because the media gives the appearence of getting intimate with the President doesn't mean that they do, and just because you saw him smiling for a camera or making a joke (that for all we know might have been totally taken out of context) doesn't mean he actually likes it, lol.

 

And that comes back to my point, if the people are stupid now for wanting to leave as a previous poster said, then they were just as stupid during the rush to war in 2003. Have a good day

801571[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. People could just flat out not understand a lot fo the reasons why we are doing this behind the PR campaign, and that would make them stupid as well.

 

 

The alternative is that staying there also "is going to do *nothing* for us in the future."

 

That is, though, predicated on what we do with Iraq I'd argue. If we stay, and don't change any of the methods that we are currently using to deal with Iraq, then yeah it would be insane to pour more resources into it.

 

The military is actually doing a pretty good job of changing how they are approaching ground operations in post-war Iraq.

 

This is the article and its a definite good move in the strategy part.

 

My brother was a hoo-rah Bush-Great Republican from the start; Air Force Raven Team --- he has been everywhere, done everything from crawling down sewers in Kuwait to guarding Laura's Bush's shoes down to Crawford. Loves the military. But last night, his words: "This is worse than Vietnam. These people [the Iraqis] will never get their sh-- together." To which I replied, "Well then, in the future you better watch how you vote."

 

The Maliki gov't has been craptacular, even given the givens. We are losing time fast.

801585[/snapback]

 

The post-war construction effort in Iraq hasn't gone great, partly because its not a typical military operation and its been run that way.

 

Other military buffs on this board that know more then me feel free to correct me, but I don't believe that the military is setup to deal effectively with these types of Democracy-building issues that they've encountered.

 

Quite frankly the Democratic plan of cutting our losses is quite underwhelming. At the very least, the US needs to give the appearance of securing Iraq's government for political reasons.

 

For 1), I just don't have that hope. Like I thought at the time, the president's biggest mistake was in not seperating each group to its own province. What he envisioned as a diverse Iraqi society cannot work for the same reason it wouldn't have in the former Yugoslavia. These people are killing each other.

 

I'd cautiously disagree here. Breaking up Iraq into three different regions, while keeping family in the same place, causes some big issues.

 

- It encourages ethnic cleansing in these areas caused by the distinct countries.

- Wealth is unevenly distributed in Iraq, and breaking up Iraq will ultimately lead to wars over natural resources.

- What do you do with Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk? That immediately triggers a war for control over those cities.

 

I said "cautiously disagree" because I think it could work.... with a strong police force and better democratic institutions in Iraq, things that thus far we haven't been able to build.

 

Personally, I think the Repubs are purposely blowing this election. They let the Dems come in, bring the war toward some kind of conclusion, they can save face by continuing to call the Dems 'cut and run' and fobbing this admin's poor decisions off by saying they didn't have enough time to make it work. By sacrificing now, they can have a shot at the presidency in '08 by being able to point to mistakes the Dems make when they're in charge of something. B/c let's face it, the presidency is what matters. In turn, Dems will temporarily get to feel like they have some kind of control. The story of the caricatures of American Politics will go on like it has for the last 50+ years. And in the back rooms where macropolitics is decided, the Big Two will clink glasses and enjoy 20-year-old Scotch.

 

Hell no. There's no way they want to be out of power just to make something go away, especially if the Democrats so find a miracle solution. That would cost them years. The last thing that they want is Democrats appearing stronger then they are on one of the most important issues in American politics today, and for the foreseeable future.

 

Also, the incumbency advatage of controlling resources and the media is so freakin huge that it would be stupid for them to purposefully lose an election.

[Chilly]

I think he is positively giddy about being a "wartime president".

 

Giddy in what sense? That it helps him politically? I could see that he's happy to have a war because of the boosts he gets, but the way it was being implied is that he personally enjoys sending people to war. Do you really think that The Prez is *so* out of touch with humanity that he looks at everything politically and doesn't have any personal struggles of his own? The memoirs of previous Presidents show that this is very rarely, if ever, the case in the US.

 

It's the Iraqis' decision. They want us gone, then we'll leave. But don't B word when the death toll shoots through the roof.

 

I'd argue that it isn't the Iraqis' decision. It wasn't their decision whether we invaded Iraq, and it hasn't been their decision (up to this point) that we are staying there. If we just say "Okay, we'll leave if thats what you want" and suddenly listen to what they are saying it will be nothing more then an excuse to pull out. Our concerns in this war have little to do with the Iraqi people and a lot more to do with our own interests.

 

I don't know what we need to do but right now, we're in deep kaka with as I see it, no good way out. Retreat !@#$s Iraq and Afghanistan in the ass. Staying !@#$s them in the ass too.

 

Which is why coming up with a solution at this point is the best thing to do. Its not at the point yet where we've tried multiple strategies and have no way of winning it.

[Simon]

Giddy in what sense? That it helps him politically? I could see that he's happy to have a war because of the boosts he gets, but the way it was being implied is that he personally enjoys sending people to war. Do you really think that The Prez is *so* out of touch with humanity that he looks at everything politically and doesn't have any personal struggles of his own?

 

I don't think it's just political, although he has benefited from that label, but I think there are other factors involved. For one, I think he's spent his whole feeling like he's living in his father's shadow and now he has something that makes him feel really important, like he's accomplishing something instead of just being a steward. I also think that's there's a religious aspect involved as I think he believes he's doing God's Will and has no regrests about sending US servicemen into combat becasue it's the Will of the Lord.

He's repeatedly mentioning the fact that he's a wartime president, seemingly with great pride, you regularly hear him talking about "shock and awe", or getting bin Laden "dead or alive", or "bring it on" or "mission accomplished" as if he were a little kid playacting a movie. I honestly think he's having fun making himself feel like some kind of tough guy.

Yes, I think he's all but divorced from reality (witness his administrations disdain for "reality-based" policy) and that his repeated references to himself as a wartime president are a way of puffing himself up into something he could never otherwise be; a mountain-moving world-builder presiding over perilous and important times.

Aplogies for not being able to support or articulate this well but it's just the sense I get from him when I see and hear him speak.

Cya

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Aplogies for not being able to support or articulate this well but it's just the sense I get from him when I see and hear him speak.

Cya

801944[/snapback]

 

Well, that's a relief.

 

I'm glad you're able to "sense" such things. Tell me, can you "sense" what the winning powerball numbers are? I could use a few mill.

[Simon]

Tell me, can you "sense" what the winning powerball numbers are?

Sorry but getting a sense of the character of an individual is just a wee bit different from predicting the random output of a machine.

And if you want more money work harder you lazy bastard.

[Alaska Darin]

The alternative is that staying there also "is going to do *nothing* for us in the future."

 

My brother was a hoo-rah Bush-Great Republican from the start; Air Force Raven Team --- he has been everywhere, done everything from crawling down sewers in Kuwait to guarding Laura's Bush's shoes down to Crawford. Loves the military. But last night, his words: "This is worse than Vietnam. These people [the Iraqis] will never get their sh-- together." To which I replied, "Well then, in the future you better watch how you vote."

 

The Maliki gov't has been craptacular, even given the givens. We are losing time fast.

801585[/snapback]

Was he actually IN Vietnam?

[true_blue_bill]

The honest positive reasons to go to war have been overshadowed by the incorrect reasons to go to war. (Of course, the decent arguments against war have been overshadowed by "OMG THERE WERE NO WMDS" crap that has become partisan politics of this war).

You're right, the NY Times editorial page came out against going to war back in 2001, saying that there were no good short-term options to remove Heussein.

 

However, the NY Times paper as a whole actually supported the Presidents decision, whether on purpose or inadvertantly, during the leadup to war with its coverage of news.  This was discussed by the editors here.

 

I'm not trying to sound pedantic.  If you claim that we want to Iraq because they had WMDs, and that the war is a mistake, then you need to explain how that decision was a mistake given what we knew at the time, otherwise its a moot point.

 

Now, if you want to say that the intelligence community made a mistake in its pre-Iraq operations, then thats a different story.

So a country music song = what the President is feeling? 

 

Well, then since the President had Alan Jackson on his iPod, I guess that mean's he is also wasting away again in margaritaville, and he went to Iraq to search for his lost shaker of salt, as Alan Jackson did the song in a 1999 album with Jimmy Buffett.

 

There are plenty of reasons why he'd like to be a wartime President, and why a war helps him as The Prez, I'm not denying that, but to just flat out say he enjoys war is labeling him with emotions that we have no idea if he's truly like or not.  Just because the media gives the appearence of getting intimate with the President doesn't mean that they do, and just because you saw him smiling for a camera or making a joke (that for all we know might have been totally taken out of context) doesn't mean he actually likes it, lol.

Not necessarily.  People could just flat out not understand a lot fo the reasons why we are doing this behind the PR campaign, and that would make them stupid as well.

That is, though, predicated on what we do with Iraq I'd argue.  If we stay, and don't change any of the methods that we are currently using to deal with Iraq, then yeah it would be insane to pour more resources into it.

 

The military is actually doing a pretty good job of changing how they are approaching ground operations in post-war Iraq. 

 

This is the article and its a definite good move in the strategy part.

The post-war construction effort in Iraq hasn't gone great, partly because its not a typical military operation and its been run that way.

 

Other military buffs on this board that know more then me feel free to correct me, but I don't believe that the military is setup to deal effectively with these types of Democracy-building issues that they've encountered.

 

Quite frankly the Democratic plan of cutting our losses is quite underwhelming.  At the very least, the US needs to give the appearance of securing Iraq's government for political reasons.

I'd cautiously disagree here.  Breaking up Iraq into three different regions, while keeping family in the same place, causes some big issues.

 

- It encourages ethnic cleansing in these areas caused by the distinct countries.

- Wealth is unevenly distributed in Iraq, and breaking up Iraq will ultimately lead to wars over natural resources.

- What do you do with Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk?  That immediately triggers a war for control over those cities.

 

I said "cautiously disagree" because I think it could work.... with a strong police force and better democratic institutions in Iraq, things that thus far we haven't been able to build. 

Hell no.  There's no way they want to be out of power just to make something go away, especially if the Democrats so find a miracle solution.  That would cost them years.  The last thing that they want is Democrats appearing stronger then they are on one of the most important issues in American politics today, and for the foreseeable future.

 

Also, the incumbency advatage of controlling resources and the media is so freakin huge that it would be stupid for them to purposefully lose an election.

801729[/snapback]

I can only address the points you made towards me. You are very wrong about that article you posted. Did you even read it? It didn't say the news department 'supported' Bush on the war, they explained that they accepted too blindly the propaganda they were fed by them. They said clearly they wished they had been more careful about the sources they were fed. That's pretty clear. Opposing the war from me had nothing to do with whether there were WMD or not. I thought he probably had something, but Jesus Christ only an idiot would a thought he was building a nuke and we wouldn't know where it was. If he was building one we could of bomb the place. I felt our troops would have been victims to nerve gas or something during the invasion. Thank God they were not subject to that! And I find your reliance on Wilson's foreign policy as very puzzling. It was much simpler than that to figure out why Iraq would n'tbe a democracy. Forget history and use math. 20% of the nation controlled the ignorant, super religious Shiittes and then there were the Kurds who wouldn't be part of the nationa anyway, and had been fighting each other also. Why would the Sunnis ever submit to slavery [democracy] under the Shiites? That blew my mind people thinking that would happen. Of course they wouldn't accept that. Oh, and on the music, you skipped the other evidence I floated. The music was mentioned to show others wanted revenge and Bush could be the same way. You seem to place this very stupid man abbove that because...well...he is President. What did Thomas Jefferson try and teach us about the Presidency? And do you really think his pictures looking for WMD were taken out of context???? OMG!! Please post something that proves me wrong. Please! Out of context? I mean the guy was joking about a mssion in which men he sent were dying. Bill O'Reilly even had the mother of the kid who died that fvcking very day on. Of course he was rude to her But ok.