The lulz that is congress.

[Maxxthepenguin]

To surrender we'd have to have an enemy.

[sunb1ind]

So it seems kind of mixed. And that last article you posted, I glanced over it because of class in five minutes, but I think it's irrelevant because the people said they wanted out to stimulate the economy, not for right or wrong. Right?

That's what I got out of it. They like to use alot of "fuzzy math" questions to skew these polls. There's no need to dance around the question, but if they did it the right way there would be overwhelming percentages against the war and we wouldn't actually need to argue against withdrawal.

[Charla]

You'd have to have another poll just to decide what the "right way" is, though. And then someone would complain your sample size isn't big enough.

[sb]

I have long thought (pre 9/11 even) our country on the whole need to focus more on its internal problems than those outside of it's borders. Imagine if war money went to education/sciences/health care and Social Security/infrastructure/national debt. Though the past 30-40 years of previous actions make it virtually impossible to do this as we are pretty much "involved".

edit: holy 5 new post while I was writing this. I'm not even responding to the current flow of the thread anymore...

[Izzy]

To surrender we'd have to have an enemy.

I've thought the same thing. Who exactly would we be "surrendering" to? The random dudes with guns? I don't really think there's a group to "surrender" to anymore. Just people who hate Americans.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

edit: What would you consider a "relevant" reason for advocating a given course of action? (leaving aside the obvious fact that the respondants probably gave all sorts of reasons for their responses). Peace? Freedom? Human rights? Democracy? Victory?

Yay for a boring lecture.

In regards to withdrawal or foreign policy in general?

[Charla]

Both, preferably. More importantly, enlighten us on why a citizen of a representative democracy needs a good enough reason behind their opinions before they count.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Both, preferably. More importantly, enlighten us on why a citizen of a representative democracy needs a good enough reason behind their opinions before they count.

With regards to withdrawal from Iraq, we went in there and deposed the existing government. I believe it is therefore our responsibility to the Iraqi people to leave them with a functioning government, regardless of whether we should or should not have gone in there. I think the world would look at the U.S. more severely if we invaded countries and just left a power vacuum in our wake. I also think if we don't leave a functioning government in Iraq it will just turn in to what Afghanistan used to be. I guess that's more of a "what if" scenario I don't want to know the answer to, versus a viable argument.

Foreign policy in general, I don't know, I think it's a case by case basis.

And the last thing, citizens of a rep. democracy don't need good enough reasons behind their opinions to count, the need enough numbers behind those beliefs to count.

[Olo401]

(This is from 2006, and people are even more war-weary now)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

What did the poll mean by favor the war? Myself for example, I don't think we should of gone to war with Iraq, but I don't think believing we shouldn't have gone equates to we shouldn't be there now. I would say I'm not in favor of the war, but that I'm not in favor of surrendering.

That's what you need to get past then. There is no surrender involved here - we started the war for no good fucking reason, we can end it for no good fucking reason if we have to. Fortunately there's plenty of good reasons to get the hell out, and the only real reason to stay (to rebuild a country that we bombed into the fucking Stone Age) doesn't fly. They have a functioning government, they have some control over their internal affairs and relations with other countries in the region.. they have millions of people who could be working to rebuild - instead of these do-nothing contractors like Bechtel and Halliburton - but they're not so they use their plentiful free time to SHOOT OUR SOLDIERS. Let these people work, and instead of paying corporations PAY THEM.

[Doofus]

(This is from 2006, and people are even more war-weary now)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08 ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

What did the poll mean by favor the war? Myself for example, I don't think we should of gone to war with Iraq, but I don't think believing we shouldn't have gone equates to we shouldn't be there now. I would say I'm not in favor of the war, but that I'm not in favor of surrendering.

That's what you need to get past then. There is no surrender involved here - we started the war for no good fucking reason, we can end it for no good fucking reason if we have to. Fortunately there's plenty of good reasons to get the hell out, and the only real reason to stay (to rebuild a country that we bombed into the fucking Stone Age) doesn't fly. They have a functioning government, they have some control over their internal affairs and relations with other countries in the region.. they have millions of people who could be working to rebuild - instead of these do-nothing contractors like Bechtel and Halliburton - but they're not so they use their plentiful free time to SHOOT OUR SOLDIERS. Let these people work, and instead of paying corporations PAY THEM.

Do you seriously think the people that want a better Iraq and actively want to rebuild and prosper are the same people killing us? lol Anyways, I get your point but I really don't think they have as much control over the government as we think they do, we can't even control it with 130k troops, what chance do they have?

Maybe we shouldn't have gotten in there in the first place but i don't think we can just up and leave atm.

[sunb1ind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDQ6YuqNsmA

Here's a good response to the subject about pulling troops out of Iraq. This is not our war, this is an situation that needs to be handled by the middle east. This is if you completely ignore the fact we are harvesting their natural oil anyways. Olo401 did a good job of explaining this point as well.

[Demosthenes11]

so glad our oil prices are so low because of the war

[Charla]

So it seems kind of mixed. And that last article you posted, I glanced over it because of class in five minutes, but I think it's irrelevant because the people said they wanted out to stimulate the economy, not for right or wrong. Right?

And the last thing, citizens of a rep. democracy don't need good enough reasons behind their opinions to count, the need enough numbers behind those beliefs to count.

I sense a contradiction. Unless you were being facetious earlier, then nm.

As for the actual topic, your argument is probably right, but I would still hold that the easiest, quickest and most reliable way to get Iraq's government functioning is to be willing to admit defeat if they won't. The way I see it, they're probably capable of stabalizing the situation, but it's easier to just bicker about old grudges and let the Americans do the heavy lifting.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So it seems kind of mixed. And that last article you posted, I glanced over it because of class in five minutes, but I think it's irrelevant because the people said they wanted out to stimulate the economy, not for right or wrong. Right?

And the last thing, citizens of a rep. democracy don't need good enough reasons behind their opinions to count, the need enough numbers behind those beliefs to count.

I sense a contradiction. Unless you were being facetious earlier, then nm.

I wasn't being facetious earlier, but I'm not sure I see a contradiction there.

As for the actual topic, your argument is probably right, but I would still hold that the easiest, quickest and most reliable way to get Iraq's government functioning is to be willing to admit defeat if they won't. The way I see it, they're probably capable of stabalizing the situation, but it's easier to just bicker about old grudges and let the Americans do the heavy lifting.

Yea I would have no problem admitting defeat and leaving, if it were true, but the reports over the past few months don't indicate were losing at all.

[Charla]

Unless I'm misreading that first quote there, it says "the opinions expressed in this poll are invalid because they were given for the wrong reason". Then the second quote says "there is no such thing as a wrong reason for a citizen's opinion". Maybe you meant "the poll's respondants weren't really giving their opinion on what we should do, they were just mentioning that doing one thing would have these economic effects." Of course, either way it counts as an opinion, but the second way it's not quite a direct contradiction.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Unless I'm misreading that first quote there, it says "the opinions expressed in this poll are invalid because they were given for the wrong reason". Then the second quote says "there is no such thing as a wrong reason for a citizen's opinion". Maybe you meant "the poll's respondants weren't really giving their opinion on what we should do, they were just mentioning that doing one thing would have these economic effects." Of course, either way it counts as an opinion, but the second way it's not quite a direct contradiction.

I don't think you misread it, I think it's the latter. I stated the article was irrelevant because they weren't voicing their opinions on right vs. wrong, more so "this would help the economy" like you said.

[Charla]

Well, that's fine then (and I did misread it, because I had only considered the first interpretation).

[pohibaba]

Yea I would have no problem admitting defeat and leaving, if it were true, but the reports over the past few months don't indicate were losing at all.

What do you consider winning? If it's establishing a reliable democratic government then we're still decades from that happening.

[Charla]

I dunno, Maliki's government is at least as "democratic" as your average banana republic, it just fails at keeping people from blowing each other up. That part could be solved in a year if some very unlikely things happen, or it could be solved never (hi, Pakistan). In the end, agreeing to leave with or without a "victory" would at best light a fire under Maliki and get the blowing-stuff-up under control for a couple minutes, or at worst do approximately nothing, but we can still say we tried.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Yea I would have no problem admitting defeat and leaving, if it were true, but the reports over the past few months don't indicate were losing at all.

What do you consider winning? If it's establishing a reliable democratic government then we're still decades from that happening.

Then that's the price we pay, and maybe next time we'll be more sure, but I don't think were decades away. I'm no expert so I can't back it up, but with troop deaths down, civilian deaths down, and recently released documents where Al Qaeda states it's in crisis, it just doesn't seem that way. If we were really decades away, it would be all over CNN, MSNBC, New York times etc. I know your man Ron Paul said it would take 30 years, but with the surge working, I think he's wrong in this case.