THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.

Incorrect. Large majorities want US troops out whether or not your definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this.

Cycloptichorn

You have not provided any evidence that substantiates this claim of yours. I have heard numerous poll results that support my claim. So first you supply your evidence that substantiates your claim. Then and only then will I supply my evidence that substantiates my claim.

I'll be back later! So you have plenty of time to assemble your evidence.

Don't even need time.. Here:

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A quick perusal will show you that there are no majorities which wish for US troops to remain in Iraq until peace has been achieved. There are no majorities which are willing to keep troops there for longer then 2 more years no matter what.

Most support a phased withdrawal but not one which is dependent on nebulous goals.

Present your evidence.

Cycloptichorn

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.

...


"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?" Options rotated

.

Keep Forces ..... Withdraw Forces ..... Unsure
........ % .................... % ...................... %
9/27-30/07
......... 43 .................... 54 ...................... 3
7/18-21/07
......... 39 .................... 59 ...................... 3

...

ican keeps repeating :

Quote:

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

i wonder what words of wisdom ican can offer the iraq veterans who spoke to admiral mullen ?

as one of them said :

Quote:

"When it becomes a burden to my family, sir, that's repulsive," said the captain, who, like his fellow officers, could not be quoted by name without granting permission.

another one said that his wife often can't find a doctor when their child gets sick .

it seems to me that if those soldiers "... must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq ..." as ican says , they should expect the full and unstinting support of america .
a/t to those soldiers that kind of support is missing . surely , those defending the country should not have to worry about the small things in the lifes of their families , should they ?

if "We must win and succeed in Iraq" is of paramount importance , should it not be just as important to say : "we must support our troops and their families fully " ?
from what i keep reading , something seems to be missing .
hbg

An air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory. Even when justified under the law of war, bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents' benefits. … For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully during [counterinsurgency] operations, neither disregarding them outright nor employing them excessively.

Although USAF [U.S. Air Force] can deliver relatively small weapons with great precision, it still lacks options to neutralize individual adversaries in close proximity to noncombatants or friendly personnel, to control crowds, or to prevent movement of people on foot through complex urban terrain.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.

Incorrect. Large majorities want US troops out whether or not your definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this.

Cycloptichorn

You have not provided any evidence that substantiates this claim of yours. I have heard numerous poll results that support my claim. So first you supply your evidence that substantiates your claim. Then and only then will I supply my evidence that substantiates my claim.

I'll be back later! So you have plenty of time to assemble your evidence.

Don't even need time.. Here:

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A quick perusal will show you that there are no majorities which wish for US troops to remain in Iraq until peace has been achieved. There are no majorities which are willing to keep troops there for longer then 2 more years no matter what.

Most support a phased withdrawal but not one which is dependent on nebulous goals.

Present your evidence.

Cycloptichorn

You claimed: "Large majorities want US troops out whether or not [ican's] definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this."

The only polling results you referenced that relate to your claim are listed below:

Quote:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.

...


"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?" Options rotated

.

Keep Forces ..... Withdraw Forces ..... Unsure
........ % .................... % ...................... %
9/27-30/07
......... 43 .................... 54 ...................... 3
7/18-21/07
......... 39 .................... 59 ...................... 3

...

Your evidence is inadequate, because this, the only almost pertinent question, is worded incompletely. To be pertinent to your claim, this question had to have been worded:

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means" we will not win and succeed in Iraq?

Your evidence is inadequate, because this question, was not asked in October. To be pertinent to your claim, this question had to have been asked in October after it was more generally known that we are making good progress toward our goal of winning and succeeding in Iraq.

Your evidence is inadequate, because 54% in the last week of September is not a large majority, in a poll that is accurate roughly + or - 3%.

Your evidence is inadequate, because from about the middle of July to the last week in September the poll results dropped from 59% to 54%. The poll results, if the question were asked in October, may have shown that less than 50% want our forces withdrawn "even if that means"
we will not win and succeed in Iraq.

I will supply my evidence tomorrow that what a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What I and a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.

Incorrect. Large majorities want US troops out whether or not your definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this.

Cycloptichorn

You have not provided any evidence that substantiates this claim of yours. I have heard numerous poll results that support my claim. So first you supply your evidence that substantiates your claim. Then and only then will I supply my evidence that substantiates my claim.

I'll be back later! So you have plenty of time to assemble your evidence.

Don't even need time.. Here:

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A quick perusal will show you that there are no majorities which wish for US troops to remain in Iraq until peace has been achieved. There are no majorities which are willing to keep troops there for longer then 2 more years no matter what.

Most support a phased withdrawal but not one which is dependent on nebulous goals.

Present your evidence.

Cycloptichorn

You claimed: "Large majorities want US troops out whether or not [ican's] definition of success is achieved; and there's plenty of data to support this."

The only polling results you referenced that relate to your claim are listed below:

Quote:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.

...


"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?" Options rotated

.

Keep Forces ..... Withdraw Forces ..... Unsure
........ % .................... % ...................... %
9/27-30/07
......... 43 .................... 54 ...................... 3
7/18-21/07
......... 39 .................... 59 ...................... 3

...

Your evidence is inadequate, because this, the only almost pertinent question, is worded incompletely. To be pertinent to your claim, this question had to have been worded:

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means" we will not win and succeed in Iraq?

Your evidence is inadequate, because this question, was not asked in October. To be pertinent to your claim, this question had to have been asked in October after it was more generally known that we are making good progress toward our goal of winning and succeeding in Iraq.

Your evidence is inadequate, because 54% in the last week of September is not a large majority, in a poll that is accurate roughly + or - 3%.

Your evidence is inadequate, because from about the middle of July to the last week in September the poll results dropped from 59% to 54%. The poll results, if the question were asked in October, may have shown that less than 50% want our forces withdrawn "even if that means"
we will not win and succeed in Iraq.

I will supply my evidence tomorrow that what a majority also want is for us to win and succeed in Iraq.

The fact that Congress has not even attempted to defund the Iraq war like it did the Vietnam war, clearly implies that Congress is aware that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq.

ican711nm wrote:

...

The fact that Congress has not even attempted to defund the Iraq war like it did the Vietnam war, clearly implies that Congress is aware that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq.

A combination of unsourced Assertion and Projection on your part; no such implication is clear.

Congress doesn't want to be blamed for losing the war; that's a more likely scenario, b/c it's exactly what the right-wing has threatened to do.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...

The fact that Congress has not even attempted to defund the Iraq war like it did the Vietnam war, clearly implies that Congress is aware that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq.

A combination of unsourced Assertion and Projection on your part; no such implication is clear.

Congress doesn't want to be blamed for losing the war; that's a more likely scenario, b/c it's exactly what the right-wing has threatened to do.

Cycloptichorn

Now ask yourself the obvious question. Why doesn't Congress want to be blamed for losing the Iraq war? Could it be that Congress knows damn well that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq? Of course that's what Congress knows. Back when Congress defunded the Vietnam war, a majority of Americans wanted us to leave Vietnam whether we won there or not.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...

The fact that Congress has not even attempted to defund the Iraq war like it did the Vietnam war, clearly implies that Congress is aware that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq.

A combination of unsourced Assertion and Projection on your part; no such implication is clear.

Congress doesn't want to be blamed for losing the war; that's a more likely scenario, b/c it's exactly what the right-wing has threatened to do.

Cycloptichorn

Now ask yourself the obvious question. Why doesn't Congress want to be blamed for losing the Iraq war? Could it be that Congress knows damn well that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq? Of course that's what Congress knows. Back when Congress defunded the Vietnam war, a majority of Americans wanted us to leave Vietnam whether we won there or not.

You say 'of course' but that's just a combination of assertion and projection on your part.

I believe that the Dems in congress believe that people like you, and the Republicans in Congress, would blame them for defunding the war, claiming that it will leave troops without bullets, B/c Bush wouldn't pull them out of Iraq.

This is likely to have some traction with Joe Sixpack, as people who don't follow politics are known to be susceptible to soundbites.

Ending the war through forced defunding is the messiest and least productive way possible to end the war. The Dems don't want to go down that road for a variety of reasons, but it sure isn't because they realize most Americans want us to stay until we win - which is defined how, and how long is that going to take, and how much is it going to cost, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...

The fact that Congress has not even attempted to defund the Iraq war like it did the Vietnam war, clearly implies that Congress is aware that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq.

A combination of unsourced Assertion and Projection on your part; no such implication is clear.

Congress doesn't want to be blamed for losing the war; that's a more likely scenario, b/c it's exactly what the right-wing has threatened to do.

Cycloptichorn

Now ask yourself the obvious question. Why doesn't Congress want to be blamed for losing the Iraq war? Could it be that Congress knows damn well that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq? Of course that's what Congress knows. Back when Congress defunded the Vietnam war, a majority of Americans wanted us to leave Vietnam whether we won there or not.

You say 'of course' but that's just a combination of assertion and projection on your part.

I believe that the Dems in congress believe that people like you, and the Republicans in Congress, would blame them for defunding the war, claiming that it will leave troops without bullets, B/c Bush wouldn't pull them out of Iraq.

This is likely to have some traction with Joe Sixpack, as people who don't follow politics are known to be susceptible to soundbites.

Ending the war through forced defunding is the messiest and least productive way possible to end the war. The Dems don't want to go down that road for a variety of reasons, but it sure isn't because they realize most Americans want us to stay until we win - which is defined how, and how long is that going to take, and how much is it going to cost, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

This entire argument of yours is nothing more than "a combination of assertion and projection" by you.

I have repeatedly defined the USA winning and succeeding in Iraq. Here's a more detailed definition. The USA wins and succeeds in Iraq when the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq decreases below 30, remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after we have completed our departure.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...

The fact that Congress has not even attempted to defund the Iraq war like it did the Vietnam war, clearly implies that Congress is aware that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq.

A combination of unsourced Assertion and Projection on your part; no such implication is clear.

Congress doesn't want to be blamed for losing the war; that's a more likely scenario, b/c it's exactly what the right-wing has threatened to do.

Cycloptichorn

Now ask yourself the obvious question. Why doesn't Congress want to be blamed for losing the Iraq war? Could it be that Congress knows damn well that a majority of Americans want us to win and succeed in Iraq before we get out of Iraq? Of course that's what Congress knows. Back when Congress defunded the Vietnam war, a majority of Americans wanted us to leave Vietnam whether we won there or not.

You say 'of course' but that's just a combination of assertion and projection on your part.

I believe that the Dems in congress believe that people like you, and the Republicans in Congress, would blame them for defunding the war, claiming that it will leave troops without bullets, B/c Bush wouldn't pull them out of Iraq.

This is likely to have some traction with Joe Sixpack, as people who don't follow politics are known to be susceptible to soundbites.

Ending the war through forced defunding is the messiest and least productive way possible to end the war. The Dems don't want to go down that road for a variety of reasons, but it sure isn't because they realize most Americans want us to stay until we win - which is defined how, and how long is that going to take, and how much is it going to cost, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

This entire argument of yours is nothing more than "a combination of assertion and projection" by you.

I have repeatedly defined the USA winning and succeeding in Iraq. Here's a more detailed definition. The USA wins and succeeds in Iraq when the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq decreases below 30, remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after we have completed our departure.

Okay, that's the goal - what's the plan?

My guess is the words 'stay the course.'

Cycloptichorn

Those are goals. How do you plan to accomplish those goals?

Cycloptichorn

YES, because winning and succeeding in Iraq "is of paramount importance," it is just as important that "we must support our troops and their families fully" adequately.

ican wrote :

Quote:

YES, because winning and succeeding in Iraq "is of paramount importance," it is just as important that "we must support our troops and their families fully" adequately.

but what is the reality ?
is it what those soldiers were telling admiral mullen - and what assurances was he able to give them in turn ?
hbg