Americans want to win in Iraq

[madanthonywayne]

A recent poll suggests the American people aren't ready for a pull out in Iraq without acheiving victory. Especially if it leaves Iraq in chaos.

The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

# By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.

# By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.

# Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.

# While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

# By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

This is, no doubt, why Murtha is trying to defund the war in a sneaky (and possible unconstitutional) way rather than just voting to pull funding.

[Prince_James]

Conclusive results.

[Redefine91]

I agree


Of course I can Guarantee that a few members here will question the credibility of this survey because it

1.) Favors republicans
2.) Wasn't conducted by the New York Times
3.) Supports Bush because we all know NO ONE likes him in America out of some 300 million.

[Genji]

Riiight. All it'll take is 3k more dead Americans, another trillion of debt and further into the civil war and even your sources will prove military might cannot subdue Iraq.

[spidergoat]

I would like to see Baron Max deny the validity of those numbers.

[spidergoat]

Never mind. I will.

"For example, Rob Autry and Gene Ulm are with Public Opinion Strategies, the largest Republican polling firm. POS was responsible for the "Harry and Louise" ad in the early 90's that scuttled Clinton's health insurance proposals. In 2001, it was charged with violating Virginia's polling disclosure laws, and it has also been accused of using push polls to influence elections."

[spidergoat]

What does it mean to win? Are the various militias going to give up? All because some Americans are patrolling some streets (very fast in convoys of lightly armoured vehicles).

[Genji]

What does it mean to win? Are the various militias going to give up? All because some Americans are patrolling some streets (very fast in convoys of lightly armoured vehicles).

Exactly. "Win?" Does that mean when the US brokers peace between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds? When Iraq is a flourishing Christian democracy? WTF is 'winning' in Iraq? Losing another trillion dollars? Making more & more enemies? Just for the sake of winning??? It's obvious we cannot subdue and rule Iraq through a puppet regime that is splitting apart. We have destabilized the entire region and destroyed Iraq. I think we've done enough already to ensure a virulently anti Western cleric will rule Iraq.

[madanthonywayne]

What does it mean to win? Are the various militias going to give up? All because some Americans are patrolling some streets (very fast in convoys of lightly armoured vehicles).

It means order is restored. It means we pull out and the entire middle east does not explode into civil war.

Right now all the defeatists and democrats (redundant?) are only prolonging the war by giving the enemy hope. They know they can not defeat us in a straight up fight, but so long as democrats continue to protest and talk of forcing a pull out; the enemy knows they just need to hold out a little longer. Then they can declare victory.

On the other hand, if America were united behind the president, the enemy would lose hope and quit the fight. That is how you win a war. You must convince the enemy he can not possibly win. Unfortunately, the democrats are doing all they can to convince us that we can not win.

[terryoh]

To take Baron Max's line of thinking, this is only the opinion of a SMALL amount of people. I hate it when a small amount of people get to speak for an entire nation.

[hypewaders]

Given the right phrasing of questions, evoking our emotional requirements for security and comfort, a majority of a representative sample of Americans will consistently respond:


I want to be a winner; not a loser
I want to be proud of my country; not ashamed
I want certainty; not uncertainty


On the other hand, questions can also be framed to stimulate reasoned thought. In those instances, Americans also answer by a consistent majority, in a seemingly contradictory way to our responses to emotional appeals:


Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake for the United States.
Iraq is a quagmire devouring our soldiers and taxes while encouraging our enemies.
We must reverse course and withdraw.
And (the hardest reality of all) we must admit we were wrong.


Truth can be disconcerting, but using reason we all can see that the unintended consequences of reality-avoidance are infinitely more perilous than the hardest truth. Using the appeal to emotion, quick answers are easy, while reason takes a little more time. Similarly, America has not initially responded reasonably to 9-11, but reason will take hold, after the initial anger and the fear are overshadowed by the real threats and challenges. The longer we neglect it, the more the truth will hurt- But we're gonna have to face it.

[timmbuktwo]

Exactly. "Win?" Does that mean when the US brokers peace between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds? When Iraq is a flourishing Christian democracy? WTF is 'winning' in Iraq? Losing another trillion dollars? Making more & more enemies? Just for the sake of winning??? It's obvious we cannot subdue and rule Iraq through a puppet regime that is splitting apart. We have destabilized the entire region and destroyed Iraq. I think we've done enough already to ensure a virulently anti Western cleric will rule Iraq.

You really think Iraq will ever be a Christian Democracy? Winning means getting the poor bastards off their feet and giving them a chance for a better life , one not under an opressive system ,but one based on freedoms and rights. We will loose money and men, but in the long term betterment of society is it not worth it?

[Genji]

You really think Iraq will ever be a Christian Democracy? Winning means getting the poor bastards off their feet and giving them a chance for a better life , one not under an opressive system ,but one based on freedoms and rights. We will loose money and men, but in the long term betterment of society is it not worth it?

No, it isn't worth it. I mentioned the Christian democracy thing because the US Right is at war with Islam. Period. Wherever it is. How can we assume to know who would best lead them? If we succeeded at creating a pro US Iraq, including civilians, and 'won' the civil war we would have to rebuild the country and remain for as long as that takes. 20 years? 50 years? Are you willing to pay for that? For Iraq? Our arrogance and ignorance. displayed by the Bush govt. and our failed military have ensured we will not 'win' Iraq. No one wins a civil war, we just ignited it and made the situation far worse.

[timmbuktwo]

No, it isn't worth it. I mentioned the Christian democracy thing because the US Right is at war with Islam. Period. Wherever it is. How can we assume to know who would best lead them? If we succeeded at creating a pro US Iraq, including civilians, and 'won' the civil war we would have to rebuild the country and remain for as long as that takes. 20 years? 50 years? Are you willing to pay for that? For Iraq? Our arrogance and ignorance. displayed by the Bush govt. and our failed military have ensured we will not 'win' Iraq. No one wins a civil war, we just ignited it and made the situation far worse.

How about islam being in a war against the US? or any non-extremist islamic system there is in the world? I think it's more about creating a pro-democracy Iraq than a pro-US Iraq, and for some reason people in general think that everything would be nice and peacefull in the world if the US didn't participate in their meddling of other countries affairs. Remember, I'm not american ,not biased towards them, I'm from Slovakia, and have lived in Canada for the last 20 years.

[hypewaders]

timmbuktwo: "How about islam being in a war against the US?"

It isn't.

"I think it's more about creating a pro-democracy Iraq than a pro-US Iraq"

It's about results. The results of present American foreign policy are are not only widespread antagonism toward America. The results are the consistent and dramatic multiplying and empowerment of anti-American radicals. That's why "Staying the Course" isn't going to work.

"for some reason people in general think that everything would be nice and peacefull in the world if the US didn't participate in their meddling of other countries affairs."

If any nation were behaving as the US has been lately, they would be defeating themselves in the global war of ideas, AKA socioevolution.

[timmbuktwo]

""If any nation were behaving as the US has been lately, they would be defeating themselves in the global war of ideas, AKA socioevolution.""

What do you mean hype?

[madanthonywayne]

If we succeeded at creating a pro US Iraq, including civilians, and 'won' the civil war we would have to rebuild the country and remain for as long as that takes. 20 years? 50 years? Are you willing to pay for that? For Iraq?

Genji, it's not for Iraq. At least not just for Iraq. It's for us. The consequences of a premature pull out would be disasterous. We have a responsibility to not abandon Iraq because we're getting bored with the whole thing. It would be stabbing every Iraqi who fought by our side in the back. It would bring dishonor on America and all Americans. We must finish what we started. We invaded. How can we justify jumping in, fucking things up, then running away? It would be immoral, wrong, and cowardly.

[timmbuktwo]

YES, you must finish what you start, it's a very basic childhood lesson we all learn from our parents. Why do we all seem to forget it now?

[hypewaders]

madanthonywayne: "The consequences of a premature pull out would be disasterous."

Prove to us that these consequences will be worse than continuing to inflame a regionalizing shi'a-sunni conflict. Prove to us that these consequences are less predictable than having US favor and sacrifice manipulated by our swiftly-alternating ruling Arab "friends".

[timmbuktwo]

I think its called setting a precedent for all other nations , hype.