Interesting

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Meanwhile, a recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition.

www.boston.com

I've said many times that if only a small percentage of the population supports the insurgents, we will never win this fight.

Why? Because the fact is that we are outnumbered, massively.

25 million people in Iraq.

45% of those support the insurgents in some way; either through aid in the form of money, weapons, and food, or through shelter and lack of information shared with the US about their whereabouts.

I have never seen a number as high as 45% before in a poll looking towards support of the insurgents vs. US forces. This is not good. We literally have millions of Iraqis working against us. How can any of you hope that we will win this conflict through military means?

From the same article:

Quote:

''We are not going to win the unconditional surrender from the insurgents and have no choice but to somehow bring them into society," said retired Army Colonel Paul Hughes, an Iraq war veteran who is now at the government-funded US Institute for Peace. ''To think there will be one climactic military event to end this is foolish. Those who cling to that don't understand."

The question then becomes, can we win through political means? I think the answer lies in three parts:

#1, can we stop the corruption?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3243627

#2, can we hold their gov't together long enough to form a constitution?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.main/index.html

#3, can we train the Iraqi Army up to handling the job when we leave?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/13/news/baghdad.php

I welcome all discussion and opinions on the matter of withdrawl.

Cycloptichorn

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 658 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Can you provide the details of the poll? the srticle did not.

Who did they poll? Where did they poll?? How many adults were asked to participate.

Otherwise, this poll is just....well...useless.

I can turn this around and say 55% are NOT against it.

0 Replies

Well, I agree you can, but 55% on our side isn't near high enough. The article didn't give details of the poll and I doubt that the Army is going to publicly release such a negative finding, so good luck.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well then discussions and opinions on withdrawal.

I will take, as you know, a hard line approach based upon the "theory" our mission was accomplished the day we stopped looking for WMD.

The Iraqis have had enough time to install a new govt and now is the time to turn over governing and policing to them. It is not the responsibility of the coalition forces to act as peace keepers/police.

I do not support the argument that we need time to "fix what is broke" or that the insurgents will take over.

SO long as whoever is governing that nations does not become a clear and present danger to the security of the US, I do not care who governs them.

0 Replies

considering how many of our kids have died or been mutilated freeing them from saddam, anything above 0% support for the insurgents by iraqis is unacceptable.

"the gratitude of the liberated iraqi people", indeed.

0 Replies

Regardless of some calculation about what we do or do not owe them, is it good to allow people who are essentially barbaric terrorists to overrun a democracy and suppress the citizens again? If we do leave and the radical Islamic terrorists take over government of Iraq, might it pose a danger for us sometime in the future? Might a radical Islamic dictatorship there link up with other such countries and organizations?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Regardless of some calculation about what we do or do not owe them, is it good to allow people who are essentially barbaric terrorists to overrun a democracy and suppress the citizens again? If we do leave and the radical Islamic terrorists take over government of Iraq, might it pose a danger for us sometime in the future? Might a radical Islamic dictatorship there link up with other such countries and organizations?

bingo. which is exactly the only good reason to have left saddam in place and work other ways to get rid of him. being a secular dictator, he was persona non grata with the islamists. bin laden called him a communist.

even if we stayed for 20 years, the possibility of an islamist takeover will exist the moment the last soldier leaves.

look, if the iraqis want a liberal democracy, they are the ones that are responsible for creating it and maintaining it. we can't make them believe anything in that regard.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Regardless of some calculation about what we do or do not owe them, is it good to allow people who are essentially barbaric terrorists to overrun a democracy and suppress the citizens again? If we do leave and the radical Islamic terrorists take over government of Iraq, might it pose a danger for us sometime in the future? Might a radical Islamic dictatorship there link up with other such countries and organizations?

bingo. which is exactly the only good reason to have left saddam in place and work other ways to get rid of him. being a secular dictator, he was persona non grata with the islamists. bin laden called him a communist.

even if we stayed for 20 years, the possibility of an islamist takeover will exist the moment the last soldier leaves.

look, if the iraqis want a liberal democracy, they are the ones that are responsible for creating it and maintaining it. we can't make them believe anything in that regard.

What we should have done has no bearing on what we should do now. When you say that even 20 years of effort is doomed to failure, on what do you base that? Sometimes a strong effort succeeds.

Should we abandon a new democracy to the wolves? Is it moral, and might a radical Islamic dictatorship in Iraq be dangerous for us later? Lots of wars have gone on longer than this one. Why do you feel that leaving quickly is more urgent now than in the previous history of the US?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Regardless of some calculation about what we do or do not owe them, is it good to allow people who are essentially barbaric terrorists to overrun a democracy and suppress the citizens again? If we do leave and the radical Islamic terrorists take over government of Iraq, might it pose a danger for us sometime in the future? Might a radical Islamic dictatorship there link up with other such countries and organizations?

<<sigh!>>

Your arguments are completely based on your use of unsupported and undefined terms, to express empty nationalitic jingoism.

You use the term "barbaric terrorists overrunning a democracy".

Do you really think the government we set up is anything close to a "democracy"? One election does not make a democracy, and the Iraqi government is dependent on an occupying force.

Do you think you can use the word "barbaric terrorist" to refer to everyone who opposes the government formed by a US-imposed election? Not everyone who opposes the government resorts to brutality-- in fact the number who have commited brutal acts could be very small-- kind of like pinning the acts of a few rogue US soldiers on the whole military. The fact is that a significant proportion of the population -- perhaps up to 45% oppose the US role there.

And of course... another problem is that a religious Islamic candidate won the election who is setting up a Islamic government. Whether this will be a "radical" Islamic government or not is a question of opinion.

According to the poll, some 15% of Iraqi's strongly support the US role in Iraq. That doesn't sit very well with your rosy picture of US policy bringing "democracy" to the country.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Regardless of some calculation about what we do or do not owe them, is it good to allow people who are essentially barbaric terrorists to overrun a democracy and suppress the citizens again? If we do leave and the radical Islamic terrorists take over government of Iraq, might it pose a danger for us sometime in the future? Might a radical Islamic dictatorship there link up with other such countries and organizations?

<<sigh!>>

Your arguments are completely based on your use of unsupported
and undefined terms, to express empty nationalitic jingoism.

I do not see how wanting to help a new, weak Iraqi government protect the right to self-determination is either nationalistic or jingoistic. I haven't used any nationalistic jingles in this post that I am aware of.

ebrown_p wrote:

You use the term "barbaric terrorists overrunning a democracy". Do you really think the government we set up is anything close to a "democracy"?

I think it's a step in the right direction in a part of the world that hasn't seen many democracies.

ebrown_p wrote:

One election does not make a democracy, and the Iraqi government is dependent on
an occupying force.

They had an election that was apparently fair. That is what democracy means. They are a democratic republic. I want to stick with them until either they are able to fend for themselves, or the elected government asks us to leave.

ebrown_p wrote:

Do you think you can use the word "barbaric terrorist" to refer to everyone who opposes the government formed by a US-imposed election?

No, I meant the armed insurgents who firebomb non-combatants and capture civilians to blackmail their countries.

ebrown_p wrote:

Not everyone who opposes the government resorts to brutality-- in fact the number who have commited brutal acts could be very small-- kind of like pinning the acts of a few rogue US soldiers on the whole military. The fact is that a significant proportion of the population -- perhaps up to 45% oppose the US role there.

There is a young democracy forming there. The new government was elected at the polls. This inchoate democracy should be given a chance. If they prefer a radical Islamic government, they should have the right to elect one. They should not have a government imposed on them that the citizens have not chosen.

ebrown_p wrote:

And of course... another problem is that a religious Islamic candidate won the election who is setting up a Islamic government. Whether this will be a "radical" Islamic government or not is a question of opinion.

They can elect whomever they please. I just want to protect the democratic process there. You seem to have no regard for this at all.

ebrown_p wrote:

According to the poll, some 15% of Iraqi's strongly support the US role in Iraq. That doesn't sit very well with your rosy picture of US policy bringing "democracy" to the country.

Maybe they've been listening to American liberals screaming that the US is only there to steal their oil. Since they have now had a democratic election for the first time in history, it is self-evident that we brought democracy to them. Now we have to make sure it can protect itself from anti-democratic forces, and then we should leave.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Regardless of some calculation about what we do or do not owe them, is it good to allow people who are essentially barbaric terrorists to overrun a democracy and suppress the citizens again? If we do leave and the radical Islamic terrorists take over government of Iraq, might it pose a danger for us sometime in the future? Might a radical Islamic dictatorship there link up with other such countries and organizations?

bingo. which is exactly the only good reason to have left saddam in place and work other ways to get rid of him. being a secular dictator, he was persona non grata with the islamists. bin laden called him a communist.

even if we stayed for 20 years, the possibility of an islamist takeover will exist the moment the last soldier leaves.

look, if the iraqis want a liberal democracy, they are the ones that are responsible for creating it and maintaining it. we can't make them believe anything in that regard.

What we should have done has no bearing on what we should do now. When you say that even 20 years of effort is doomed to failure, on what do you base that? Sometimes a strong effort succeeds.

Should we abandon a new democracy to the wolves? Is it moral, and might a radical Islamic dictatorship in Iraq be dangerous for us later? Lots of wars have gone on longer than this one. Why do you feel that leaving quickly is more urgent now than in the previous history of the US?

umm, maybe i didn't say it right;

whether or not the u.s. pulls it's troops in 20 days, 20 months or 20 years, at any one of those points, the iraqis will be responsible for there country's politics, human rights and for what role islam will play.

it's their country. unless we plan to maintain a large deployment permanently ( in which case, it really does become a full occupation ), at some point we will have to take off the training wheels. then, well, iraq will be whatever type of country the population wants or allows it to be.

if it's a free and open democracy, great. if it becomes a liberal islamic theocracy, less great, but okay.

if it becomes an islamic fundamental theocracy, not good, but their determination. if so, then we'll have to deal with it as appropriate to their actions.

yeah, i'd like to see the soldiers return sooner than later. but, since we started it we have to finish it. i'm not exactly sure of everything that should be done, but whatever we're doing now isn't really going as well as i would an endeavor of the united states to go.

so there's no misunderstanding, i don't blame the military for that. i hold the administration and our congress responsible.

so they need to be held accountable. it comes with the job.

0 Replies

I am very curious about how they will come up with an Iraqi Constitution that all of the interests will find acceptable. This is the most important part of the optimists; rosy plans for the future, and it is very uncertain that it is even possible.

If the result is a good Constitution ratified in December leading to a stable society that is widely accepted by all three main ethnic groups (and allowed by the US administration), I will accept that this is a very good thing.

The question is given the wildly competing interests from ethnic hatred to disagreement over sharia is this even possible. The other question is whether current US policy is helping or hurting an eventual decent outcome.

Any result other than a Constitution in December is a disaster, and the current strategy is awfully costly and risky for a target that is so uncertain.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I am very curious about how they will come up with an Iraqi Constitution that all of the interests will find acceptable. This is the most important part of the optimists; rosy plans for the future, and it is very uncertain that it is even possible.

well if they want a constitution, it seems that they'll have to do it the same way that we, and others, have had to do it. smack each other around, bitch and complain and then, ultimately, compromise with each other. it's gonna be up to them to work it out. not us.

ya can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink.

0 Replies

Interesting

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know