[Moderator]

Boy those pesky facts just keep getting in the way of the right wing bullsh*t machine. So now we are stationing 150 thousand troops in a country against the wishes of the majority of its own people. That sounds like an occupation. It also sounds very unAmerican.

Hmm I wonder what we would think if another country was stationing tens of thousands of troops that we didn't want on our soil...hmmm lemme think....

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601721_pf.html

[itai195]

Silly Moderator! Everyone knows polls reflect reality, and reality is totally unreliable. Or as Colbert says, 'Reality has a well-known liberal bias'

[Pendergast]

Damn liberuls strike again with their lies!

[spacefreak]

We'll have to see the actual poll data, not just an article paraphrasing selective data.

For example, the title of this article is "Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout", but scanning through the article yields this key point... "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year." Not quite so "immediate".

Regardless, we're going to try and honor what the elected Iraqi government wants from us in regards to security services. If the Iraqis don't like what they decide, they can vote them out of office.

[itai195]

spacefreak -- the article refers to more than one poll. In one poll, 65% wanted immediate withdrawal, in the other 71% want withdrawal within a year.

[spacefreak]

"I really don't like the Americans who patrol on the street. They should all go away," said a young boy as he swept up hair on the shop's floor. "But I do like the one who guards my church. He should stay!"

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

spacefreak -- the article refers to more than one poll. In one poll, 65% wanted immediate withdrawal, in the other 71% want withdrawal within a year.

Then we need to see all the data from the 65% poll as well, which is titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas."

[Spliffdaddy]

Actually, since the previous poll was taken, 30% more Sunnis want us to stay in Iraq.

Pretty damned amazing if you ask me.

[spacefreak]

I think it's amazing that certain factions love to use these "Most feel..." polls when it suits their agenda, yet conveniently ignore those "Most feel..." polls that go against it.

For example, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup's "Most Americans oppose gay 'marriage'" poll.

Personally, I like to see all the polling data. Too many times we see articles that play with the results to suit whatever bent the author has. I don't want to see one man's (the author) opinion on what a specific poll amounts to, with his/her cherry-picked data.

I want to see what was asked, who was asked, and what the responses were.

[Millennium]

They want the successors to the Taliban in their government, then? Because that's what it means if the US pulls out now: a quick but bloody coup followed by the imposition of sharia. Last I checked, that's not what most Iraqis want.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Actually, since the previous poll was taken, 30% more Sunnis want us to stay in Iraq.

Pretty damned amazing if you ask me.

Right. This is because we put Al Qaeda's allies in charge (the Shiites), and now Al Qaeda is in the country killing Saddam's people, the Sunnis.

In other words, we were the ones that screwed over the Sunnis in the first place. Yay us. Let's see what other good things we can do for the Sunnis the longer we stay.

[Spliffdaddy]

that would be a nice spin attempt if:

a) it were true

b) it made any sense

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

that would be a nice spin attempt if:

a) it were true

b) it made any sense

Well it is true. The Shiites resistance was helped by Al Qaeda when Saddam was in power. That's why Saddam wouldn't talk to Al Qaeda.

And what happened when we took over Iraq? The Shiites took power. That's why this is a civil war. It's the Shiites and Al Qaeda vs. the Sunnis. Neither side wants the other to have any say in the government. And we're in the middle.

[Spliffdaddy]

OK, so US troops made it possible for the Shiites to gain power.

Yet, the Sunnis want US troops to stay.

um. gotcha.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

OK, so US troops made it possible for the Shiites to gain power.

Yet, the Sunnis want US troops to stay.

um. gotcha.

Well the Sunnis are the minority. If US troops don't stay, who's going to defend them?

Of course, for that matter, how could you ever end this civil war?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Millennium

They want the successors to the Taliban in their government, then? Because that's what it means if the US pulls out now: a quick but bloody coup followed by the imposition of sharia. Last I checked, that's not what most Iraqis want.

Thank you for saying this.

It's funny that the very same people who tend to assail the "right" as not recognizing "nuance" and always being black & white are the ones who can only see black & white on this issue.

There are, most definitely, shades of gray on this issue.

We can't go back to not invade. We're there. We have to deal with it.

And, right now, the U.S. military is, believe it or not, a stabilizing force in Iraq. If the U.S. pulls out, there is a power vacuum, almost definitely to be filled with a radical group under the influence of Iran.

I have to think that is not what Iraqis, or anyone other than radical Muslims, wants.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Thank you for saying this.

It's funny that the very same people who tend to assail the "right" as not recognizing "nuance" and always being black & white are the ones who can only see black & white on this issue.

There are, most definitely, shades of gray on this issue.

We can't go back to not invade. We're there. We have to deal with it.

And, right now, the U.S. military is, believe it or not, a stabilizing force in Iraq. If the U.S. pulls out, there is a power vacuum, almost definitely to be filled with a radical group under the influence of Iran.

I have to think that is not what Iraqis, or anyone other than radical Muslims, wants.

Most people aren't thinking what is best for Iraq.

Most people are thinking "what is the best way I can slam Bush and America"

You are talking on a different level here.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well the Sunnis are the minority. If US troops don't stay, who's going to defend them?

Of course, for that matter, how could you ever end this civil war?

Whether it's a civil war right now or not is subject to debate.

I think it would be easier for the US to step aside for a while and let the Iraqis fight it out. We could concentrate on smacking Iran and making their lives miserable. Then, after most of the violent Iraqis have killed each other, the US could go back in and try to get their government established and functioning.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

We can't go back to not invade. We're there. We have to deal with it.

Great, so what's the plan? Obviously what we've been doing for the past 3 years isn't working at all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by itai195

Great, so what's the plan? Obviously what we've been doing for the past 3 years isn't working at all.

Is it obvious? Really?

Do you know that most actions usually take DECADES after it is over to even judge such a thing?

Hell we are still judging the outcomes of our actions during WWII and NAM.

[itai195]

So your plan is to stay in Iraq for decades?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most people aren't thinking what is best for Iraq.

Most people are thinking "what is the best way I can slam Bush and America"

You are talking on a different level here.

That's exactly right. Regardless of whether or not we should have went into Iraq, or whether we handled it well or poorly, premature extract-a-lation is not in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Buuuuuuut…what's good for Iraq is baaaaad for the Democrats, especially in an election year.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Whether it's a civil war right now or not is subject to debate.

Not unless you have some weird definition of "Civil War". The problem is two religious factions in Iraq trying to kill each other because they don't want a government with influence from the opposing faction.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

So your plan is to stay in Iraq for decades?

Well, as has been stated many times before, it took 11 years after our Declaration of Independence for our own Constitution to be ratified. Things are a bit more complicated in Iraq so how long do YOU think it should take to get a government decent enough for us to leave?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush

That's exactly right. Regardless of whether or not we should have went into Iraq, or whether we handled it well or poorly, premature extract-a-lation is not in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Buuuuuuut…what's good for Iraq is baaaaad for the Democrats, especially in an election year.

Honestly, it doesn't make a difference either way.

If we are there, they will fight each other to the death.

If we leave, they will fight each other to the death.

They don't want us there.

So what exactly is our purpose there?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac

Honestly, it doesn't make a difference either way.

If we are there, they will fight each other to the death.

If we leave, they will fight each other to the death.

They don't want us there.

So what exactly is our purpose there?

No, if we are there we have a chance of ensuring a decent government. If we leave, we all but guarantee another Islamic extremist state.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, as has been stated many times before, it took 11 years after our Declaration of Independence for our own Constitution to be ratified. Things are a bit more complicated in Iraq so how long do YOU think it should take to get a government decent enough for us to leave?

How about that for a non-sequitur. The Revolutionary War was fought by Americans over their homeland, how is that anything like Iraq? The war itself took 7 years to fight, how is that anything like Iraq? The Constitution has zilch to do with anything, we had the Articles of Confederation and a peaceful, though broken, government years before the Constitution. Not to mention that our Constitution was a historic document, arguably the first of its kind anywhere in the world. These days, having a constitution isn't particularly rare. You know what is similar? The British stopped fighting because they lost their will to fight and their nation was bankrupt, not because they were losing on the ground.

The problem is that our leaders did not warn that the conflict in Iraq would take decades. I think Americans are just now realizing what we got ourselves into and are, rightly so, putting our self-interests first.

No, if we are there we have a chance of ensuring a decent government. If we leave, we all but guarantee another Islamic extremist state.

Similar things were said about Vietnam, yet the decision to pull out of that fiasco was an excellent one. It seems to me that our very presence in Iraq precludes that nation from having a decent government, not unlike the Israeli presence in Palestinian territories.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, if we are there we have a chance of ensuring a decent government. If we leave, we all but guarantee another Islamic extremist state.

I agree, but if our military presence undermines the establishment of that government?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

How about that for a non-sequitur. The Revolutionary War was fought by Americans over their homeland, how is that anything like Iraq? The war itself took 7 years to fight, how is that anything like Iraq? The Constitution has zilch to do with anything, we had the Articles of Confederation and a peaceful, though broken, government years before the Constitution. You know what is similar? The British stopped fighting because they lost their will to fight and their nation was bankrupt, not because they were losing on the ground.

The problem is that our leaders did not warn that the conflict in Iraq would take decades. I think Americans are just now realizing what we got ourselves into and are, rightly so, putting their self-interests first.

Similar things were said about Vietnam, yet the decision to pull out of that fiasco was an excellent one.

Well gee, you are right but the point is that how the hell can you and others expect so much more so soon when these things take more than just a few years almost every time it is tried. Yeah, things in Iraq suck worse than most thought, but giving up and leaving before the country is stable is not fair to ANYONE involved.

But as Kevin said, people like you don't seem to have the iraqi people's interest in mind at this point. You would rather see the country fall to Al Qaeda than to see Bush's plans succeed.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by smacintush

But as Kevin said, people like you don't seem to have the iraqi people's interest in mind at this point. You would rather see the country fall to Al Qaeda than to see Bush's plans succeed.

Well people like me warned in 2002 that the American people were not being told the truth regarding how long democratizing Iraq would take, and that they most likely would lose the will to fight before that process could be completed. You are right though, I have the American people's interests in mind rather than the Iraqi people's. I do not believe this war was, or continues to be, worth the cost.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by paul w

I agree, but if our military presence undermines the establishment of that government?

How will our absence help? All it will do is weaken the government and then our efforts will truly be wasted when we have either another terrorist regime or three smaller terrorist regimes creating even MORE problems in the region.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

Well people like me warned in 2002 that the American people were not being told the truth regarding how long democratizing Iraq would take, and that they most likely would lose the will to fight before that process could be completed. You are right though, I have the American people's interests in mind rather than the Iraqi people's. I do not believe this war was, or continues to be, worth the cost.

I agree that they weren't being honest, but I don't believe that complete honesty was called for here. (not a real popular position I admit)

and we haven't lost YET.

I admit that in the long term this war was a gamble but a good outcome in Iraq would be well worth it. A truly strong, free and democratic regime would be a wonderful thing in that region.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by smacintush

A truly strong, free and democratic regime would be a wonderful thing in that region.

I agree with you, we just seem to disagree on the means to achieve this. Personally I think Iran would've been a more likely candidate, though the transformation obviously could not have been accomplished via military means.

[spacefreak]

I just read the entire report with all the data. Some interesting things in addition to what's been mentioned above...

* 65% of Iraqis feel their government is the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.

* The Kurds like our presence and efforts there.

* 46% of Iraqis feel their security forces need help from military forces of other countries.

* If US security forces were to withdraw over the next 6 months, 38% believe inter-ethnic violence will increase.

* 68% approve of the US helping Iraqis organize their communities to address local needs (such as building schools and health clinics), and 63% approve of the US training Iraqi security forces.


Northern Iraq (Kurdish areas) seems to be in good shape when looking over these results. Sunnis are still pissed they are not kings of the land, but they appear to settling a bit. The Shias numbers have swung from being mostly pro-coalition forces to mostly anti-coalition.

I'd like to know more about the Iraqi group that did the survey, for some of these results could be skewed somewhat due to the respondents hesitation to answer questions truthfully in fear of reprisals.

Interesting poll, but it's not going to change the fact that the Iraqi government wants us there to provide security services. If the Iraqis are dead-set against our presence, the many in the current goverment will be voted out come election time.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by itai195

You know what is similar? The British stopped fighting because they lost their will to fight and their nation was bankrupt, not because they were losing on the ground.

Yeah...interestingly enough, from what I've read it seems the Native Americans were pretty much close to convincingly winning the war in the interior when the British just got tired of it all...and backstabbed them. S u c k.

greg

[nonhuman]

What I find most interesting about this thread is that, despite the misuse of an apostrophe, the title actually makes sense, 'Most Iraqi's want: US out...now'.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well it is true. The Shiites resistance was helped by Al Qaeda when Saddam was in power. That's why Saddam wouldn't talk to Al Qaeda.

And what happened when we took over Iraq? The Shiites took power. That's why this is a civil war. It's the Shiites and Al Qaeda vs. the Sunnis. Neither side wants the other to have any say in the government. And we're in the middle.

I don't know if Al-Qaeeda sided with the Shiites when Saddam was still in power, but I know for sure that now Al-Qaeeda is definitely not on the side of the shiites, quite the opposite.

Al-Qaeeda is a thoroughly sunni-islamistic organization, and if you look carefully you will see that the Al-Qaeeda-attacks in Iraq are and were targetted mostly against shia civilians and interests, as well as the general policeforces (which are mostly made up by shias) and iraqi/US-military. The sunnis on the other hand get killed by shia militias that have infiltrated the regula police-forces and iraqi military, ie. through death-squadrons.

Taliesin

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, if we are there we have a chance of ensuring a decent government. If we leave, we all but guarantee another Islamic extremist state.

I'm not sure you understand. We have two groups in the country, and neither wants the other in control of the country. There isn't going to be a working Democracy in Iraq. Period. Iraq is simply not ready, and it was a mistake to force Democracy on them. So let's stop forcing Democracy on them, and let whatever we've started run it's course. On it's own.

The Right likes to say "Oh! We can fix this! It's our fault, but we can fix it!" No guys, we can't. It's too late for that. All we do by staying is make the situation worse. But the Right can't seem to let go.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

* 65% of Iraqis feel their government is the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.

Strangely enough, that's about the percentage of the population that is Shiite. Also strangely enough, the Shiites are in control.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Millennium

They want the successors to the Taliban in their government, then? Because that's what it means if the US pulls out now: a quick but bloody coup followed by the imposition of sharia. Last I checked, that's not what most Iraqis want.

But that will happen if we abandon them now.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

But that will happen if we abandon them now.

It's probably going to happen if we don't abandon them.

[goMac]

Apparently Iraq is averaging one attack every 15 minutes...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2047607.shtml

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

But as Kevin said, people like you don't seem to have the iraqi people's interest in mind at this point. You would rather see the country fall to Al Qaeda than to see Bush's plans succeed.

I believe the Democrats do have the best interests of the Iraqis at heart, though for various reasons have deluded themselves into thinking a withdrawal is a good thing for the Iraqis. I even started a thread about it.

Part of the reason for this delusion is a non-delusional perception of Bush. I dug this up researching another thread and thought there was some whacky symmetry here.

This is from Vietnam for Dummies:

As noted Johnson historian Robert Dalleck argues:

Johnson formulated policy and created legislation in private. Public debate did not fit into his style.

Johnson's personality lent itself to unilateral action rather than open debate, and it dominated those around him. He did not encourage discussion contrary to his own view.

Johnson had a great sense of loyalty to those who fought and believed that opposing a conflict in which Americans were risking their lives was treason.

A public debate would recognize and legitimize the antiwar movement.

Most important, Johnson believed that most Americans supported the war effort, which eliminated the need to have a debate.

Coupled with an almost pathological unwillingness to admit fault, someone with an attitude like this makes it nearly impossible to redress a whole list of grievances. That the post-war situation has been handled with negligence approaching criminal proportions being first and foremost on this list.

Can anyone honestly say that Bush hasn't put the Democrats in a really difficult position?

I can't say I'm proud of how the Democrats have handled this, but I can't exactly blame them for latching on to the first proposal that's gotten traction after enduring years of this sort of disrespect.

[Nicko]

I have a feeling that in the future people like Rumsfeld will have most of the blame for the Iraq fiasco...but then, what will they care? They'll be long dead.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Millennium

They want the successors to the Taliban in their government, then? Because that's what it means if the US pulls out now: a quick but bloody coup followed by the imposition of sharia. Last I checked, that's not what most Iraqis want.

In't freedom about making choices and be accountable for them?

Or is Freedom what the US dictates?

[Rumor]

It's always Sunni in Iraq

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

Strangely enough, that's about the percentage of the population that is Shiite. Also strangely enough, the Shiites are in control.

I posted the link to the actual report. Why don't you peruse it to see how this number cuts across all 3 major ethnic groups?

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Boy those pesky facts just keep getting in the way of the right wing bullsh*t machine. So now we are stationing 150 thousand troops in a country against the wishes of the majority of its own people. That sounds like an occupation. It also sounds very unAmerican.

Hmm I wonder what we would think if another country was stationing tens of thousands of troops that we didn't want on our soil...hmmm lemme think....




Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

hehehe ... what's wrong with those iraqis? don't they know that we know that they want us there?

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm not sure you understand. We have two groups in the country, and neither wants the other in control of the country. There isn't going to be a working Democracy in Iraq. Period. Iraq is simply not ready, and it was a mistake to force Democracy on them. So let's stop forcing Democracy on them, and let whatever we've started run it's course. On it's own.

The Right likes to say "Oh! We can fix this! It's our fault, but we can fix it!" No guys, we can't. It's too late for that. All we do by staying is make the situation worse. But the Right can't seem to let go.

so what do we do now?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Boy those pesky facts just keep getting in the way of the right wing bullsh*t machine. So now we are stationing 150 thousand troops in a country against the wishes of the majority of its own people. That sounds like an occupation. It also sounds very unAmerican.

Hmm I wonder what we would think if another country was stationing tens of thousands of troops that we didn't want on our soil...hmmm lemme think....




Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

Tell me how this would be any different than freeing slaves? Only the slavemaster could mount a defense that said they liked enslavement. If my relatives were slaves I would welcome somebody risking his life to free my family.

When they wearied of war and tried to end it they might just tell the rescuers that slavery wasn't so bad. "You just go home and we'll submit to the oppression." That is what the instigators want. To make the oppressed people give up. But that is why somebody has to be strong and steadfast.

You are an instigator?

But if the Iraqi government forces are able to prevent being conquered by the jihadists then and only then should we withdraw.