THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 2-4, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


"Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq? How about [see below]?"

3/2-4/07
Favor = %
Oppose = %
Unsure = %

"Requiring U.S. troops to come home from Iraq if Iraq's leaders fail to meet promises to reduce violence there"

77
20
3

"Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year"

60
39
1

"Voting to revoke the authority it granted President Bush in 2002 to use U.S. military force in Iraq"

44
52
4

"Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq"

37
61
2

Of course they do. Those questions don't say '...as long as the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves.'

You're all wet, you should just admit it

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course they do. Those questions don't say '...as long as the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves.'

You're all wet, you should just admit it

Cycloptichorn

This specific poll question was not asked:,
"Would you favor or oppose Congress taking ... the following action in regards to the war in Iraq?

"Requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraq before the Iraqi people can defend themselves without our help."
Favor = ?
Oppose = ?
Unsure = ?


Whether or not a majority of those polled favor or oppose or are unsure about their answer to this question is not known.

While most of those polled would like us to have a time table for getting out of Iraq (so would I, if that can be achieved without leaving before the Iraqi people can defend themselves without our help), we are not mind readers and do not know how they would answer this specific question. You infer they want us out no matter what. I infer they may or may not want us out no matter what.

cicerone imposter wrote:
FACTS: 1) Bush and company connected al Qaida to Saddam before the illegal invasion of a soverign country that posed no threat to the US and 2) the UN did not approve the invasion of Iraq. 3) Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.

ican wrote:
Where are the links you said you could provide to show this statement of yours is true:
(9) the Bush admin isn't interested in catching Osama Bin Laden or the top AQ leadership?

CLUE: I wrote "Osama bin Laden is still on the loose." As for "catching" him, Bush spent the past four years doing a half-ass job.

Yes, Bush did do a half-assed job! But this coment of yours is a comment about Bush's competence, not about whether Bush is interested in catching Osama Bin Laden or the top AQ leadership.

ican wrote:
Thank you for your additional evidence of you having made dumb statement (5) the US invasion of Iraq was illegal;
by you making this dumb statement
<"the illegal invasion of a soverign country that posed no threat to the US">.

CLUES: Iraq's air space was controlled by our airplanes. The UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for Saddam's WMDs. After the invasion, Saddam didn't have any WMDs to use as proven by the simple fact that none were found.
...

I agree with all of this last statement! But what the hell has this statement got to do with whether or not the US invasion of Iraq was illegal? ANSWER: Nothing!

ican711nm wrote:

...
While most of those polled would like us to have a time table for getting out of Iraq (so would I, if that can be achieved without our leaving before the Iraqi people can defend themselves without our help), we are not mind readers and do not know how they would answer this specific question. You infer they want us out no matter what. I infer they may or may not want us out no matter what.

All I know is that they were asked a straight-up question without qualifiers, and they answered that question. People are clearly able to think for themselves and understand that the Iraqis may or may not be ready to defend themselves by that time.

Absent qualifiers, the question is far to ambiguous to permit a valid interpretation of the meaning of its answers. Absent the appropriate qualifiers each person agreeing to answer the poll can interpret the questions anyway they want without the poll takers having any clue as to what those interpretations were.

Respondents to these polls don't need you to carefully explain to them how f*cked up Iraq is or isn't, Ican; they can decide for themselves. Do you honestly believe that anyone who answered 'yes' to a timetable and 'yes' to leaving by '08, doesn't know that Iraq is screwed up and still will be screwed up then?

I agree that almost anyone polled will know that things in Iraq are all fouled up. That is beside the point. Some think that if things are all fouled up we should quit regardless of any other consideration. Some think that when things are all fouled up we should persist in making them unfouled up. There are others who think once things are fouled up to some unstated degree they cannot be made unfouled up.

So the appropriate first question should have been do you Favor or Oppose or are you Unsure whether we should leave Iraq by the end of 2008 no matter what? If a majority were to Favor no matter what, then there's no ambiguity about that. But if a majority were to Oppose no matter what, then the next questions should be directed at eliciting under what conditions a majority would favor leaving Iraq by the end of 2008.

Cycloptichorn

ican, Your ability to twist the best intel available just goes to show you're not worth the time or effort to discuss anything.

We continue to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in Iraq, but they're not treated with equal respect after they return with with a disability. Something is drastically wrong when our government treats them so shabbily.

From the NYT:

March 9, 2007
Veterans Face Vast Inequities Over Disability
By IAN URBINA and RON NIXON
WASHINGTON, March 8 — Staff Sgt. Gregory L. Wilson, from the Texas National Guard, waited nearly two years for his veterans’ disability check after he was injured in Iraq. If he had been an active-duty soldier, he would have gotten more help in cutting through the red tape.

Allen Curry of Chicago has fallen behind on his mortgage while waiting nearly two years for his disability check. If he had filed his claim in a state deploying fewer troops than Illinois, Mr. Curry, who was injured by a bomb blast when he was a staff sergeant in the Army Reserve in Iraq, would most likely have been paid sooner and gotten more in benefits.

Veterans face serious inequities in compensation for disabilities depending on where they live and whether they were on active duty or were members of the National Guard or the Reserve, an analysis by The New York Times has found.

Was the Taliban's regime more of a threat to America than was Saddam's regime? ANSWER:Hell no! Neither regime was itself a threat to America. What then is the difference between the two that makes the Iraq invasion an illegal invasion and the Afghanistan invasion a legal invasion? ANSWER: Nothing!

Quote:

Was the Taliban's regime more of a threat to America than was Saddam's regime? ANSWER:Hell no! Neither regime was itself a threat to America. What then is the difference between the two that makes the Iraq invasion an illegal invasion and the Afghanistan invasion a legal invasion? ANSWER: Nothing!

You're wrong. The taliban openly supported Al Qaeda, Saddam didn't support them in any fasion.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Was the Taliban's regime more of a threat to America than was Saddam's regime? ANSWER:Hell no! Neither regime was itself a threat to America. What then is the difference between the two that makes the Iraq invasion an illegal invasion and the Afghanistan invasion a legal invasion? ANSWER: Nothing!

You're wrong. The taliban openly supported Al Qaeda, Saddam didn't support them in any fasion.

Cycloptichorn

Taliban's regime was not itself a threat to America. It supported al-Qaeda by allowing al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan. Saddam's regime supported al-Qaeda in Iraq by not even attempting to extradite it when invited in 2002 to do so by America. On the otherhand, when invited in 1996 by a Kurdish group to invade Irbil in Kurdish controlled northeastern Iraq, Saddam's regime did comply.