THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

POLLING REPORTS OVER TIME
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007

"Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq?"

"Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year"
Favor = 63%
Oppose = 35%
Unsure = 2%

"Putting a cap or limit on the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq at any one time"
Favor = 57%
Oppose = 40%
Unsure = 2%

"Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq"
Favor = 40%
Oppose = 58%
Unsure = 2%

POLLING REPORTS OVER TIME
CBS News Poll. Feb. 8-11, 2007

"Regardless of whether you think taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, would you say that the U.S. is very likely to succeed in Iraq, somewhat likely to succeed, not very likely to succeed, or not at all likely to succeed in Iraq?"

Very Likely = 13%
Somewhat Likely = 37%
Not Very Likely = 26%
Not at All Likely = 21%
Unsure = 3%


POLLING REPORTS OVER TIME
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Feb. 7-11, 2007

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep Troops = 42%
Bring Home = 53%
Unsure = 5%

"Regardless of what you think about the original decision to use military force in Iraq, do you now believe that the United States will definitely succeed, probably succeed, probably fail, or definitely fail in establishing a stable democratic government in Iraq?" N=740, MoE ± 4 (Form 1)
Definitely Succeed = 7%
Probably Succeed = 37%
Probably Fail = 35%
Definitely Fail = 12%
Unsure = 9%

Whats your point with this Ican when I showed you another poll by some people a day later that says 63% want troops home by 2008.

Maybe both polls together mean that in theory Americans don't want us to fail or leave while things are still horrible but if things are still horrible by 2008 then they want our troops to leave.

Well, the polls don't want us to cut off the funding immediately - that's obvious.

There's a perception that 'cutting the funding' means that one day the soldiers are going to wake up without bullets or food. It doesn't mean that, but you can't explain that during a poll.

The solution is to cut funding after a certain date in the future. This gives the military types plenty of time to plan an orderly redeployment, yet reins in Bush before he can do more damage.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, the polls don't want us to cut off the funding immediately - that's obvious.

There's a perception that 'cutting the funding' means that one day the soldiers are going to wake up without bullets or food. It doesn't mean that, but you can't explain that during a poll.

The solution is to cut funding after a certain date in the future. This gives the military types plenty of time to plan an orderly redeployment, yet reins in Bush before he can do more damage.

Cycloptichorn

Since when have you or most other liberals believed in polls?

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, the polls don't want us to cut off the funding immediately - that's obvious.

There's a perception that 'cutting the funding' means that one day the soldiers are going to wake up without bullets or food. It doesn't mean that, but you can't explain that during a poll.

The solution is to cut funding after a certain date in the future. This gives the military types plenty of time to plan an orderly redeployment, yet reins in Bush before he can do more damage.

Cycloptichorn

Since when have you or most other liberals believed in polls?

I thought you guys were the ones which didn't believe in polls; the polls have been supporting our positions for quite some time now.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, the polls don't want us to cut off the funding immediately - that's obvious.

There's a perception that 'cutting the funding' means that one day the soldiers are going to wake up without bullets or food. It doesn't mean that, but you can't explain that during a poll.

The solution is to cut funding after a certain date in the future. This gives the military types plenty of time to plan an orderly redeployment, yet reins in Bush before he can do more damage.

Cycloptichorn

Since when have you or most other liberals believed in polls?

I thought you guys were the ones which didn't believe in polls; the polls have been supporting our positions for quite some time now.

Cycloptichorn

I personally dont believe in polls.
Depending on what questions are asked,or how they are asked,it is possible to find a poll that says whatever you want it to say.

For instance,if you believe Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's the greatest thing to happen to the planet,you could create a poll to get a significant number of people to agree with you.
It all depends on how the question would be worded.

My point was that when polls put Bush in the lead over Gore in 2000,or when the majority of people agreed with Bush regarding Iraq,many on the left didnt believe in the polls,claiming they were "skewed,made up,or otherwise flawed".

Now,the left seems to place all of their faith in those same polls,because the pols agree with them.

I just find that interesting,thats all.

The Choice on Iraq
...
Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.
...

Majority in Poll Favor Deadline For Iraq Pullout

U.S. Agrees to Meeting with Iran and Syria
The Bush administration has agreed to sit around a negotiating table with official representatives of Iran and Syria next month -- as part of a planned regional conference in Baghdad to discuss ways to stabilize Iraq.

In joining the Baghdad conference, the administration is tiptoeing into what has become one of the most contentious issues in the roiling Iraq debate. Critics for months have been urging the administration to end its diplomatic isolation of Iran and Syria and begin a constructive dialogue with them about how to stabilize Iraq. Even former secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has generally supported administration policy on Iraq, argued in an op-ed piece last weekend that it's time to end the diplomatic quarantine and convene an international conference on Iraq.

The Iraqi government is expected to announce the regional conference as early as Tuesday. The government will invite representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States -- in addition to all of its Mideast neighbors.