Soldiers are saying - "Get us Outta Here!"

Don't tell anybody, but the civil war has already started.

0 Replies

snood, at issue is the poll's probity, not the quality of its respondants. Given Zogby's oft-stated ideologic preferences, given Zogby's polling track record and his prognostications over the past few elections, and given what Zogby himself said - and declined to say - about the poll in question, I question the validity of the poll results as reported.

c.i. - gotchyer hopes up again, have ya?

0 Replies

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq
Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:06 AM IST

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.

While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.

Abizaid said that policy would be worked out with a unified, national Iraqi government if and when that is established, "and it would be premature for me to predict."

Many Democrats have pressed President George W. Bush to firmly state that the United States does not intend to seek permanent military bases in Iraq, a step they said would help stem the violence there.

Abizaid also told the Appropriations subcommittee on military quality of life that while an Iraqi civil war was possible, "I think it's a long way from where we are now to civil war."

Echoing Bush's statement on Monday on the outlook for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, Abizaid said if Iraqis can form a unified government, "I think there's every reason to believe ... that we'll be able to bring the size of the force down much more so by December of '06."

Abizaid cited the need to fight al Qaeda and other extremists groups and "the need to be able to deter ambitions of an expansionistic Iran" as potential reasons to keep some level of troops in the region in the long term.

But he said it would be far less than the 200,000 currently deployed in the region, including 132,000 in Iraq.

"Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability," Abizaid said. "No doubt there is a need for some presence in the region over time primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremists versus moderates."

Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.

Rep. David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned "what kind of signal that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region ... if somehow there is ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence in Iraq."

Rep. Jane Harman of California, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Bush last week said his "continuing failure to clarify U.S. intentions provides an excuse for certain Iraqis to avoid compromise and jeopardizes our ability to succeed in Iraq."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

snood, at issue is the poll's probity, not the quality of its respondants. Given Zogby's oft-stated ideologic preferences, given Zogby's polling track record and his prognostications over the past few elections, and given what Zogby himself said - and declined to say - about the poll in question, I question the validity of the poll results as reported.

c.i. - gotchyer hopes up again, have ya?

And I put it to you - if a poll was done that you considered valid (or probative, what have you) - what precise difference would that make to you, since I have you down as one who thinks we should "stay the course"?

0 Replies

It would make no difference. I am convinced of our moral and ethical obligation to provide the means and circumstances by which the Iraqi people may see to their own security, foreign and domestic, and to construct for themselves and implement a representational government.

Regardless the origins of and motivations for military intervention in Iraq, the people of Iraq deserve far better than to be abandoned to the Islamofascist thugs seeking now to replace a toppled tyrant with a tyrrany of their own.

0 Replies

Opinions vary, I suppose.

0 Replies

If they didn't, there wouldn't be much point to participating on a forum such as this, now would there?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Well, it wasn't just the soldiers deployed in Iraq, it wasn't just the Americans polled dozens of times in increasing numbers saying they'd had enough, it wasn't just Jack Murtha the Democratic war hero, it was also one of their foremost thinkers - William Buckley- who said that the inescapable conclusion was that Bush's objectives in Iraq had failed.

FAILED.

Bush's main objective was to determine to an absolute certainty whether Iraq had WMD. Seems like that's been accomplished.

As for what the soldiers think, I would like to see the exact wording of the question they were asked, but regardless, the mission was necessary to insure that Saddam Hussein no longer had the WMD and WMD development programs that he had sworn in writing to verifiably destroy. A pity Hussein never filmed their destruction and led the inspectors to the site where the remains of the WMD were to demonstrate that he had complied.

0 Replies

If they didn't, there wouldn't be much of a point to much, I'd venture.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Neocon Francis Fukuyama also said the same thing; unfortunately for republicans, they still don't get the message the war is lost.

Did we surrender?
Were we told to leave by the govt of Iraq?
Has the military admitted defeat?

If none of those have happened,then the war is not lost.

BTW,are you saying that if a "neocon" (whatever that is),says something,that it is automatically not true?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I would like to see the exact wording of the question they were asked

Here ya go (8-page .pdf document)

0 Replies

Here, read it for yourself, although I have no hope you'll understand a word of it.

Fukuyama on Iraq

A must-read. Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History and the Last Man (and something of a Straussian), writes on the Times Op-Ed page that the Bush Administration "squandered the overwhelming public mandate it had received after Sept. 11" and "alienated most of its close allies, many of whom have since engaged in 'soft balancing' against American influence, and stirred up anti-Americanism in the Middle East":

So much attention has been paid to [various] false determinants of administration policy that a different political dynamic has been underappreciated. Within the Republican Party, the Bush administration got support for the Iraq war from the neoconservatives (who lack a political base of their own but who provide considerable intellectual firepower) and from what Walter Russell Mead calls "Jacksonian America" -- American nationalists whose instincts lead them toward a pugnacious isolationism.

Happenstance then magnified this unlikely alliance. Failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the inability to prove relevant connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda left the president, by the time of his second inaugural address, justifying the war exclusively in neoconservative terms: that is, as part of an idealistic policy of political transformation of the broader Middle East. The president's Jacksonian base, which provides the bulk of the troops serving and dying in Iraq, has no natural affinity for such a policy but would not abandon the commander in chief in the middle of a war, particularly if there is clear hope of success.

This war coalition is fragile, however, and vulnerable to mishap. If Jacksonians begin to perceive the war as unwinnable or a failure, there will be little future support for an expansive foreign policy that focuses on promoting democracy. That in turn could drive the 2008 Republican presidential primaries in ways likely to affect the future of American foreign policy as a whole.

So where are we now?

With the failure to secure Sunni support for the constitution and splits within the Shiite community, it seems increasingly unlikely that a strong and cohesive Iraqi government will be in place anytime soon. Indeed, the problem now will be to prevent Iraq's constituent groups from looking to their own militias rather than to the government for protection. If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world and ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions -- Asia, for example -- for years to come.

We do not know what outcome we will face in Iraq. We do know that four years after 9/11, our whole foreign policy seems destined to rise or fall on the outcome of a war only marginally related to the source of what befell us on that day. There was nothing inevitable about this. There is everything to be regretted about it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

And since apparently neither one of you read my earlier post,I will repeat it,just for you...

I don't know what soldiers were asked the survey,but I do know this.

If you put me,a trained combat medic,into a situation where I am pushing papers,then I would also say I want out.
Soldiers are not trained to be policemen,nor are we trained as social workers.
A soldiers job is to kill people and break things.

When you put a combat soldier into any other role besides what he is trained for,he is going to want out.

So,knowing that,I am a little skeptical of the survey,because I don't know who was asked or what they were doing at the time.
That will make a difference in the results.

Now,I am also willing to bet that I could have done the same poll during WW2,which seems to be the last war the left finds honorable,and gotten the same results.

Soldiers are ALWAYS bitching about something,its when they aren't bitching that you have a problem.

Now,since we have combat troops doing everything except what they are trained to do,of course they are gonna bitch.
Soldiers are not trained to be cops,social workers,meals on wheels programs,govt officials,mediators,or anything else.
They are trained to kill people and break things.

So,when you put a combat soldier as a social worker,of course he is gonna bitch and want out.

So,I wouldn't put to much stock in that poll,unless those asked were doing the job they were trained to do.
And we will never know if thats the case or not.

I don't often agree with Mysteryman.

But this much was clear at the outset of the invasion. Armies are good for killing people and breaking things. This one particularly.

No real or concerted effort has been made to plan for anything else (see leaked diplomatic papers published yesterday, posted here)
That is the tragedy, and it's an American tragedy as well as an Iraqi one.

0 Replies

"Good news"

American casualties are slightly down while Iraqi casualties are up as the country becomes more engulfed in civil war.

0 Replies

Thousands in war protest:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-18T162503Z_01_L1841460_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-BRITAIN-PROTESTS.xml

Liklihood of US presence in Iraq being longterm:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/18/MNG6HHQGG01.DTL

0 Replies

snood, What most Americans fail to realize is the rhetoric by Bush that "we will leave when the generals on the ground or the Iraqis tells us to leave," while we build permanent bases there. DUH!

0 Replies

How many that trust Bush will buy a car from him?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

How many that trust Bush will buy a car from him?

or wood ?

0 Replies

Borrowed from another chat thread:

A Powerful New Voting Block Emerges
The Antiwar Movement Becoming a Political Force That Cannot Be Ignored
by Kevin Zeese
A new national poll shows that a near majority of voters either strongly or somewhat agree with a pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates. This makes the antiwar movement's potential impact on elections larger than pro-gun, anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage voters. Politicians will have to pay heed to this new political force.

The pledge states:

"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or president who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."

The national poll found that 45.9% of US voters agree - 20.1% strongly agree and 25.8% somewhat agree. Among Democrats 67.1% agreed - 33.3% strongly, 59.2% of Independents - 25.3% strongly and even 25.7% of Republicans agreed - 5.5% strongly. The poll was conducted by ICR Survey Research of Media, Pa., which also polls for ABC News, The Washington Post and many corporations and research organizations.

This poll demonstrates that antiwar voters are significant enough in size to effect the outcome of elections - if they become organized. Just like pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have organized - now the antiwar constituency has been identified and the peace movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the antiwar movement will no longer be one that can be ignored.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Borrowed from another chat thread:

A Powerful New Voting Block Emerges
The Antiwar Movement Becoming a Political Force That Cannot Be Ignored
by Kevin Zeese
A new national poll shows that a near majority of voters either strongly or somewhat agree with a pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates. This makes the antiwar movement's potential impact on elections larger than pro-gun, anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage voters. Politicians will have to pay heed to this new political force.

The pledge states:

"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or president who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."

The national poll found that 45.9% of US voters agree - 20.1% strongly agree and 25.8% somewhat agree. Among Democrats 67.1% agreed - 33.3% strongly, 59.2% of Independents - 25.3% strongly and even 25.7% of Republicans agreed - 5.5% strongly. The poll was conducted by ICR Survey Research of Media, Pa., which also polls for ABC News, The Washington Post and many corporations and research organizations.

This poll demonstrates that antiwar voters are significant enough in size to effect the outcome of elections - if they become organized. Just like pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have organized - now the antiwar constituency has been identified and the peace movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the antiwar movement will no longer be one that can be ignored.

Quote:
I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or president who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."

Lets examine this statement..

First off,what constitutes a "speedy end"?
Does that mean that we leave right now,or does that mean that we leave as soon as the Iraqi govt asks us to,or does that mean that we leave when they can defend themselves?

Quote:
preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."

So,does this mean that a candidate must declare his or her opposition to what other countries do,or just the US?
Also,define "war of aggression"

By definition,you could claim that once we went on the offensive in WW2,it became a "war of aggression" on our part,because we were on the attack.
Must a candidate say that was wrong?

Also,if Iran starts a war of agression,is the candidate required to say to them that they are wrong?

What about aggressive defense?
Is that wrong also.
The USAF used to intercept Soviet long range bombers off of our shores all the time,in what was an aggresive defense.
Is that also wrong,since it is aggressive?

This "pledge" is strictly for PR purposes,and meaningless.
If we are ever attacked again,will a candidate be allowed to change their position to allow for us going on the offensive,or must they demand we do nothing that might be considered aggression at all?

0 Replies

Soldiers are saying - "Get us Outta Here!"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know