Here's the fifth anniversary poll...

[Sharon in SC]

You posted twice ;)

 

Yeah. I don't know how that happened. I have to trust you understand it was not some intentional effort on my part to sound like I was shoving my words on you! :tongue_smilie:

 

Regarding Pearl Harbor and 9/11....

We just have to agree to disagree again. :D

 

On *that*, we can agree! :D

 

Have a good evening, Toni! BTW, it sounds like you've got a better handle on the ins and outs of photography rights so feel free to do what you understand to be permissable with my photos on the other thread. I trust your judgment with that. :001_smile:

[pixelroper]

Thank you for taking the time to gather your thoughts so clearly. I run parallel on much of what you said- and you said it well.

[GothicGyrl]

Yeah. I don't know how that happened. I have to trust you understand it was not some intentional effort on my part to sound like I was shoving my words on you! :tongue_smilie:

 

Regarding Pearl Harbor and 9/11....

 

 

On *that*, we can agree! :D

 

Have a good evening, Toni! BTW, it sounds like you've got a better handle on the ins and outs of photography rights so feel free to do what you understand to be permissable with my photos on the other thread. I trust your judgment with that. :001_smile:

I appreciate the trust--I don't know that I've a good grasp on it, but I do have some grasp on it--I really shouldn't get into any kind of trouble because of what I'm doing to the photos(which is pretty much changing how they look, making them completely different from the originals) and I'm not selling them so we should be safe. :D

[TXMomof4]

I really, really, really am bothered by the idea that the Iraqi's don't desire to live in a free country. Now, obviously, it won't be a replica of the good old U.S. of A. but a country where you aren't killed for disagreeing with the leadership, or for being of a certain ethnic/religious background. Are Iraqis less human than we are? Is it an Arabic trait to desire living under a dictator? We throw it around that they aren't "ready" for freedom.....well, how do you get ready? How long did it take America to live together as a nation? We've always refered to the Civil War as when America really had to grow up. That was 90 years after the start of our nation. We expect them to have a perfectly organized nation in 5 years?

 

Also, I think we have a seriously warped perspective on time. If it wasn't done yesterday, it didn't happen fast enough. How long were we involved in WWII? Vietnam? The idea that we can go in, remove the leadership, aid the formation of a new government and be out in 5 years is naive. Believe me, I want this over as quickly as possible. DH, my brother and my BIL are all military and have been deployed numerous times, but the reality is that doing the job right, i.e. training the Iraqi National Guard, the police, helping the government and infrastructure get up and running effectively, is the only way to ensure that we aren't back there in a real mess in a few years.

 

Progress is being made, troop reductions are in the works, the Iraqi people are taking an active role in the stabilization of their country. Wasn't it Anbar Province that was handed back over to the Iraqi's a few months ago?

[Mrs Mungo]

I really, really, really am bothered by the idea that the Iraqi's don't desire to live in a free country. Now, obviously, it won't be a replica of the good old U.S. of A. but a country where you aren't killed for disagreeing with the leadership, or for being of a certain ethnic/religious background. Are Iraqis less human than we are? Is it an Arabic trait to desire living under a dictator? We throw it around that they aren't "ready" for freedom.....well, how do you get ready? How long did it take America to live together as a nation? We've always refered to the Civil War as when America really had to grow up. That was 90 years after the start of our nation. We expect them to have a perfectly organized nation in 5 years?

 

I don't see where anyone said they want to live in a dictatorship or in a country of severe religious persecution. The problem is there so much history of *recent* religious persecution that there are a lot of bad feelings about the sects in question. Think about England's history. By Elizabeth I's reign there were a lot of bad feelings on all sides of the argument. Those bad feelings continued for hundreds of years and within my memory (I'm 35) there were periods of religious fighting there. You're right, it's going to take a *long* time and there will be in-fighting until they get past some of that.

 

Also, I think we have a seriously warped perspective on time. If it wasn't done yesterday, it didn't happen fast enough. How long were we involved in WWII? Vietnam? The idea that we can go in, remove the leadership, aid the formation of a new government and be out in 5 years is naive.

 

I agree. Hitler invaded Poland in the fall of 1939. The US became involved in December of 1941. V-E day came in May of 1945. But there were still struggles, occupation and rebuilding for years and years after that.

 

Believe me, I want this over as quickly as possible. DH, my brother and my BIL are all military and have been deployed numerous times, but the reality is that doing the job right, i.e. training the Iraqi National Guard, the police, helping the government and infrastructure get up and running effectively, is the only way to ensure that we aren't back there in a real mess in a few years.

 

Progress is being made, troop reductions are in the works, the Iraqi people are taking an active role in the stabilization of their country. Wasn't it Anbar Province that was handed back over to the Iraqi's a few months ago?

I do agree with you. At the same time, our huge show of force can be drawn down and we can still work on training the Iraqi military. In order to stop a lot of the attacks we need to be able to redefine our role from occupying force to err...different.

[pixelroper]

At the same time, our huge show of force can be drawn down and we can still work on training the Iraqi military. In order to stop a lot of the attacks we need to be able to redefine our role from occupying force to err...different.

 

But... since they have added to the force casualties have been down, from the 'extra support' so the story goes.

[Mrs Mungo]

But... since they have added to the force casualties have been down, from the 'extra support' so the story goes.

 

Yes, I know but it's been a while, there has been more time for them to develop their military at this point. I think "the surge" was good to give us ( and them) a starting point. Now it's time to say "we're going to start the draw-down" and see what happens.

[RebeccaC]

Rebecca says they're happy to have us there and I'd argue this really depends upon the region.

.

 

Umm this Rebecca didn't write that :001_smile:

[astrid]

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

 

Like a petulent twelve year old.

[astrid]

(Biased, I mean.) In my opinion, it is folly to think that they got us into this war because they wanted to free the Iraqi people.

 

Why are we not in Darfur? Tibet?

 

Oh. No oil. No revenue for Halliburton.

[GothicGyrl]

Here's another "understatement of the year"......

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

 

Like a petulent twelve year old.

 

For Cheney and his "so" comment, I give him:

 

:boxing_smiley::smash::cursing::cursing:

[Elaine]

In my opinion' date=' it is folly to think that they got us into this war because they wanted to free the Iraqi people.

 

Why are we not in Darfur? Tibet?

 

Oh. No oil. No revenue for Halliburton.[/quote']

 

Do you have proof for that statement? I hear it all the time and I think that it is complete nonsense.

[Elaine]

I am against this war and this administration' date=' and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

 

Like a petulent twelve year old.[/quote']

 

What answer could he possibly give. I am sure that no matter what his statement, there would be a backlash.

 

It does not bother me at all.

 

And? 2/3? No one polled me. I don't give much weight to those "polls."

[RebeccaC]

I am against this war and this administration' date=' and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

 

Like a petulant twelve year old.[/quote']

 

I wonder if this has something to do with the way polls are worded and how miss leading they can be. To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now. He may be less of a petulant 12 yo and more of biased polls prove very little so who cares :w00t:

[Elaine]

I wonder if this has something to do with the way polls are worded and how miss leading they can be. To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now. He may be less of a petulant 12 and more of biased polls prove very little so who cares :w00t:

 

Rebecca,

I think I love you.:lol:

[astrid]

To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now.

 

Can you point me to an unbiased, reputable news source (not "world news daily" or whatever that site is, and not Fox News) that paints an optimistic picture? Not being snarky.....I'd really like some good news on this front!

[RebeccaC]

(Biased' date=' I mean.) In my opinion, it is folly to think that they got us into this war because they wanted to free the Iraqi people.

 

Why are we not in Darfur? Tibet?

 

Oh. No oil. No revenue for Halliburton.[/quote']

 

No this is Gulf War II because they did not let us finish the job after Sadam tried to permanently visit Kuwait in the early 90s and if they don't finish the job this time round in a few years there will be Gulf War III.

 

You do remember all the no fly and please let us in to inspect resolutions that took place over a decade don't you? Resolutions that took place while Kurdish men, women, children and others who helped us in Gulf War I were slaughtered. Supose none of their blood is on our hands tho because we didn't have the stomach to finish our job over there. If we leave now I wonder whose blood will be on our hands :001_huh: but hey get out no matter the cost. Hmmmm does anyone remember the Cambodian killing fields?

[Elaine]

from a man who has personally made and will make BILLIONS on this war?

 

How about something a little more sensitive to those who have lost loved ones in this war?

 

How about something with a little more humility from an elected official?

 

How about something that actually acknowledges that five years later' date=' we're bogged down in a conflict that even the top military officials (and those who keep "retiring") say is a quagmire, and that the REAL threat, Bin Laden, is still at large while the vast minority of our troops are committed to Afghanistan and the efforts to actually FIND him?

 

Sorry, I just get very worked up about this. And when MY elected officials brush off public opinion about an issue that's costing US TRILLIONS of dollars with a "so?" it just makes me see red. I know so many of you love those guys, but I just don't see how they sleep at night.

 

Let the negative reps fly![/quote']

 

Molly, the last thing I am interested in is giving you negative rep. Why? What purpose would that serve? You have your opinion and I have mine. It's all good.

[RebeccaC]

Can you point me to an unbiased' date=' reputable news source (not "world news daily" or whatever that site is, and not Fox News) that paints an optimistic picture? Not being snarky.....I'd really like some good news on this front![/quote']

 

I studied political science as a minor in college and polls can be swung by the way they are worded. I do not remember bring up any news agency at all. While we are at it statistics can be manipulated to the desired out come too. So unless I know the methods used and can crunch the numbers (which I hate doing) stats hold very little weight with me as do polls. Word a poll right and you can get the desired result no matter what your political view is. That is just reality :001_rolleyes: I would imagine that Mr. Chaney knows that polls can be manipulate and so he answered so :D

[astrid]

I fully understand the fallicy of polling. However, in my mind, that does not excuse Mr. Cheney from the snide comment he made, for the reasons I stated above.

 

Perhaps, as an elected official, people will ask you questions which you deem ridiculous or unworthy of an answer. That does not invalidate the question, nor does it give carte blanche for a dismissive reply. If he'd just left out the "so?" and answered the question, IMHO, it would have been much more befitting the office of Vice President.

[nukeswife]

No this is Gulf War II because they did not let us finish the job after Sadam tried to permanently visit Kuwait in the early 90s and if they don't finish the job this time round in a few years there will be Gulf War III.

 

You do remember all the no fly and please let us in to inspect resolutions that took place over a decade don't you? Resolutions that took place while Kurdish men, women, children and others who helped us in Gulf War I were slaughtered. Supose none of their blood is on our hands tho because we didn't have the stomach to finish our job over there. If we leave now I wonder whose blood will be on our hands :001_huh: but hey get out no matter the cost. Hmmmm does anyone remember the Cambodian killing fields?

 

:hurray: Rebecca, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Gailmegan]

Ok whoever deleted my post, that was just uncalled for. This is getting ridiculous.

 

Very.

 

I wondered what happened to it. I thought you might have changed your mind about posting it. Being new here I don't know who has the authority to do such a thing, anyone or only administrators/moderators?

[GothicGyrl]

I just checked and some POSITIVE rep points I recieved tonight are suddenly GONE. They were there twenty minutes ago' date=' and now they're not. Only the negative ones are left, such as the two that say, "Real intelligent." (why thank you!)

 

What's going on?[/quote']

you can only see 5 at a time. so they aren't gone, just not showing.

 

And apparantly the "Mod" deleted that comment as well. Sheesh.

[RebeccaC]

I fully understand the fallicy of polling. However' date=' in my mind, that does not excuse Mr. Cheney from the snide comment he made, for the reasons I stated above.

 

Perhaps, as an elected official, people will ask you questions which you deem ridiculous or unworthy of an answer. That does not invalidate the question, nor does it give carte blanche for a dismissive reply. If he'd just left out the "so?" and answered the question, IMHO, it would have been much more befitting the office of Vice President.[/quote']

 

 

Ahhh maybe so but a question asked that has no factual base does deserve a so answer. How did the questioner come up with 2/3 number? If the arrival of 2/3 is not based in reality them it is a waste of time to answer and so is very appropriate.

 

I am sure that the very nice interviewer did not have all the poll questions nor the manner in which the pollster arrived at the 2/3s number so why validate the poll with an answer other than so.....

[pixelroper]

Michael Yon: Gates of Fire

 

has anyone seen this *content warning* good coverage from on the ground in Iraq-

 

and polls- I've seen so many poll questions that do not mean what they at first seem to mean:tongue_smilie:- except of course this poll:D

[astrid]

Because you're expected to answer to the American people who elected you? Because it's no secret that a large segment of the population is, in fact, not in support of this war, no matter what the actual polling percentage?

 

I'm sorry.....IMHO, "So?" is not an acceptable answer. As I said, skip the "So?" (it's snarky) and just go on with the spiel/schpeil/shpeil? OH HOW THE HECK DO YOU SPELL THAT?! :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

Umm this Rebecca didn't write that :001_smile:

 

I apologize for any confusion! Err..yeah...not going back through the whole thread, sorry. eta: I did edit my post and took your name out!

 

molly's mom-Did you read any of my post at all? and it's spiel (while I'm editing) ;)

[pixelroper]

Ahhh maybe so but a question asked that has no factual base does deserve a so answer. How did the questioner come up with 2/3 number? If the arrival of 2/3 is not based in reality them it is a waste of time to answer and so is very appropriate.

 

 

could be...

the 2/3 is 2/3s of 10, 20, 1000? what? IME whether or not a person will take a poll can be an indication of their leanings and where was the poll offered? So it can be misleading to say 2/3's of this poll answered this way therefore that correlates to 2/3 of the US voting population. Kinda messy.

[astrid]

now the positive is gone. What's that all about? :001_huh:

[GothicGyrl]

now the positive is gone. What's that all about? :001_huh:

Dunno about that, they can remove the reps, that much I do know, so maybe a mod removed it for some reason?

 

:( Sorry..

[astrid]

could be...

the 2/3 is 2/3s of 10, 20, 1000? what? IME whether or not a person will take a poll can be an indication of their leanings and where was the poll offered? So it can be misleading to say 2/3's of this poll answered this way therefore that correlates to 2/3 of the US voting population. Kinda messy.

 

I'm not talking now, nor have I been, about the actual poll numbers or how it was generated. I'm talking about Cheney's flip answer. But I"m tiring of beating my head against a wall.

[RebeccaC]

Because you're expected to answer to the American people who elected you? Because it's no secret that a large segment of the population is' date=' in fact, not in support of this war, no matter what the actual polling percentage?

 

I'm sorry.....IMHO, "So?" is not an acceptable answer. As I said, skip the "So?" (it's snarky) and just go on with the spiel/schpeil/shpeil? OH HOW THE HECK DO YOU SPELL THAT?! :001_smile:[/quote']

 

 

But it was not the American people asking the question it was a reporter or .... who was asking a question based on number that could not be verified. Therefore it was a stupid question and the reporter should have done a better job. It does not matter that a large segment of the population is not in favor (in your opinion) because the question as you wrote it was based on a poll number that could not be verified in the amount of time it took to answer the question. A reporter trying to trip up the Vice President of the United States using a poll numbers that he or she knew could not be verified is the snarky one :rolleyes:

[pixelroper]

I'm not talking now' date=' nor have I been, about the actual poll numbers or how it was generated. I'm talking about Cheney's flip answer. But I"m tiring of beating my head against a wall.[/quote']

 

it may in fact have been why he was flip- Cheney is a pawn (higher ranked of course: bishop maybe?) like the rest of them and it would sounded just as bad had he said, "Let me verify that poll result before I answer please." or "I'm not sure what poll you are referring to, let me get back to you." Hopefully he has more important things to do- wait- I know what you are going to say- and yes if he is responsible (to a point-he is the VP not the P) for addressing these matters he can address issues such as these in the appropriate forum, like a speech.

[astrid]

It does not matter that a large segment of the population is not in favor (in your opinion)

 

No, I'm pretty sure that no matter what poll you look at, it's an unpopular war now. I'm not the only one with this opinion....I think even Rush Limbaugh wouldn't claim it's a popular war. But I don't listen to him, so what do I know? :D

 

A reporter trying to trip up the Vice President of the United States using a poll numbers that he or she knew could not be verified is the snarky one :rolleyes:

 

All the more reason for the VP to behave in a bit more dignified manner. Rise above, as it were. Why lower himself, if he was so sure it was a "stupid question?" Sorry, I don't buy the "Well, he can answer however he wants because it was a stupid question" argument.

[pixelroper]

we have the system we do b/c "the masses" can get swept up in emotion and one should never make major decisions in that state of mind? I think that might be what Rebecca is trying to say. As I stated much earlier we don't have the *top secret* documents before us. Our opinions are largely formed by where our info comes from. Right? I can say with certainty I have no first hand experience and all my info is second hand.

[RebeccaC]

No' date=' I'm pretty sure that no matter what poll you look at, it's an unpopular war now. I'm not the only one with this opinion....I think even Rush Limbaugh wouldn't claim it's a popular war. But I don't listen to him, so what do I know? :D

 

 

 

All the more reason for the VP to behave in a bit more dignified manner. Rise above, as it were. Why lower himself, if he was so sure it was a "stupid question?" Sorry, I don't buy the "Well, he can answer however he wants because it was a stupid question" argument.[/quote']

 

I have no idea how old you are but I remember Nam and I do not see the numbers of Americans protesting this war like they did Nam. My dad was a college prof during quite a bit of that time in CA and none of the meager protests happening now compare to then. I have seen polls where there are more folks in favor of winning than those in favor of cutting and running. Polls can and do say anything and just because liberal media reports that most Americans are against the war does not make it so :001_huh: Just so ya know I don't listen to talk radio and am no fan of Rush Limaugh and watch very little TV news. Mostly cause I know all parties involved slant the news, polls, stats, questions, ect........

 

Just how is one to rise above a loaded question that may or may not be based on fact?

[Mrs Mungo]

we have the system we do b/c "the masses" can get swept up in emotion and one should never make major decisions in that state of mind? I think that might be what Rebecca is trying to say. As I stated much earlier we don't have the *top secret* documents before us. Our opinions are largely formed by where our info comes from. Right? I can say with certainty I have no first hand experience and all my info is second hand.

 

Oddly, (or not) most of the people I know with first hand information don't even vote. Many of them have told me: "why would you play a game in which the outcome is already decided?"

[Mrs Mungo]

I have no idea how old you are but I remember Nam and I do not see the numbers of Americans protesting this war like they did Nam. My dad was a college prof during quite a bit of that time in CA and none of the meager protests happening now compare to then. I have seen polls where there are more folks in favor of winning than those in favor of cutting and running. Polls can and do say anything and just because liberal media reports that most Americans are against the war does not make it so :001_huh: Just so ya know I don't listen to talk radio and am no fan of Rush Limaugh and watch very little TV news. Mostly cause I know all parties involved slant the news, polls, stats, questions, ect........

 

Just how is one to rise above a loaded question that may or may not be based on fact?

 

Sorry, probably a double post.

 

I think a *large* part of the difference is the draft v. an all-volunteer military. That's why you don't see as many protests. It doesn't directly affect so many Americans, especially young people.

[readwithem]

What answer could he possibly give. I am sure that no matter what his statement, there would be a backlash.

 

It does not bother me at all.

 

And? 2/3? No one polled me. I don't give much weight to those "polls."

 

:)

[pixelroper]

and oddly (or not)- I'm really not surprised- it is however disheartening

[Mrs Mungo]

and oddly (or not)- I'm really not surprised- it is however disheartening

 

I agree. I still have hope in the process...not necessarily belief but hope!

[readwithem]

I agree with this WSJ article

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120596948337250223.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

 

Where do we go from here? Iraq's transition to self-government remains fragile enough that U.S. forces will need to remain there in some numbers for years to come. The two countries will have to strike a long-term U.S.-Iraq military agreement, which would serve the interests of both countries. For Iraq, it would show America's continuing commitment in a rough neighborhood. And for the U.S., it would make the job of containing Iran easier. President Bush can best serve his Presidential successor by leaving enough troops on the ground to give him or her some strategic flexibility.

 

It is therefore unfortunate, and dangerous, that both Democratic candidates have backed themselves into a corner by endorsing rapid withdrawal from Iraq. In a speech yesterday in North Carolina, Barack Obama called for an almost complete U.S. withdrawal in 16 months. He continues to endorse the illusion that defeat in Iraq will help us prevail in Afghanistan; the opposite is closer to the truth. We will never maintain the support, either at home or abroad, to prevail in Afghanistan if we show we can be driven from the more vital strategic prize of Iraq.

 

* * *

[RebeccaC]

Sorry, probably a double post.

 

I think a *large* part of the difference is the draft v. an all-volunteer military. That's why you don't see as many protests. It doesn't directly affect so many Americans, especially young people.

 

 

I think you are right but...... :ack2::svengo: I tried to make my post nicer and so I edited it and :crying: you..... you quoted from the meaner post ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

It is therefore unfortunate, and dangerous, that both Democratic candidates have backed themselves into a corner by endorsing rapid withdrawal from Iraq. In a speech yesterday in North Carolina, Barack Obama called for an almost complete U.S. withdrawal in 16 months. He continues to endorse the illusion that defeat in Iraq will help us prevail in Afghanistan; the opposite is closer to the truth. We will never maintain the support, either at home or abroad, to prevail in Afghanistan if we show we can be driven from the more vital strategic prize of Iraq.

 

Sixteen months isn't even feasible, logistically, for a complete withdrawal. I'd like to see who is advising him on military matters.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think you are right but...... :ack2::svengo: I tried to make my post nicer and so I edited it and :crying: you..... you quoted from the meaner post ;)

 

Sorry! That happens to me all the time! I edited it to reflect your new post. eta: FWIW, I didn't think it was that mean!

 

I REALLY hate it when I notice glaring typos when someone quotes me. GAH!

[RebeccaC]

Sorry! That happens to me all the time! Want me to edit my reply to reflect your new post? eta: FWIW, I didn't think it was that mean!

 

Na I 'm on the record that I tried to make it nice although :D I am trying to keep away from assuming and using the you word too much :w00t:

[ArwenA]

I wonder if this has something to do with the way polls are worded and how miss leading they can be. To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now. He may be less of a petulant 12 yo and more of biased polls prove very little so who cares :w00t:

 

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

 

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

 

I don't follow the Iraq war closely but I follow it enough to feel I've made the right choice in not supporting the war.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

 

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

 

Woah. What do you think is going on in Iraq that would be completely solved by the US leaving? I realize it doesn't get a lot of press but you *do* realize it's the US military and/or government rebuilding their infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc? They protected women, some of whom walked 20 miles or more just to vote. It's even more true for Afghanistan than it is Iraq since Afghanistan had so much less to begin with. Much of the work of the US military is humanitarian in nature. What the US is doing there *now* is *much* more about giving the Iraqis a better life. They aren't razing villages. Every day in Iraq *before* the war you would have had to pray that you weren't arrested by Saddam's guard or thrown out of your house by a corrupt official or many other things. It's not the US killing the civilians by blowing up marketplaces. Many of *those* people aren't Iraqi, either. They are from Yemen and Saudi, they don't have an investment in a better Iraq. I absolutely feel for these people and the situation but it wasn't all caused by the US.

[pixelroper]

What the US is doing there *now* is *much* more about giving the Iraqis a better life. They aren't razing villages. Every day in Iraq *before* the war you would have had to pray that you weren't arrested by Saddam's guard or thrown out of your house by a corrupt official or many other things.

 

exactly, as I hear it, usually our troops are getting shot at trying to prevent everyday people from getting shot as they try to go about their everyday business which includes improving their country & way of life

 

where is that US flag waving smiley?

[RebeccaC]

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

 

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

 

I don't follow the Iraq war closely but I follow it enough to feel I've made the right choice in not supporting the war.

 

 

There is no good war but sometimes war is necessary. Anybody who has been to war will tell you it is not good. I am thinking about innocent Iraqis and how they no longer endure r*pe rooms, or the disappearance of loved ones. I am thinking about whole towns of innocent Iraqi Kurds who were gassed by Saddam. I am thinking about the pictures of mothers with babies and young children dead, littering the streets of the town they lived in along with every other living creature in the town. Imagining an Iraqi mother praying that America would keep her promise and provide a safe place for her children and not leave them to the fate of a mass grave like we did after Gulf War I. People who we talked in to help us with the promise that we would protect them that we let down.

 

The Iraq war has nothing to do with 911. It has to do with Saddam not following international law after Gulf War I. With his breaking the no fly zone and not allowing weapon inspections for more than 10 years. We left Iraq with out finishing our job and thousands of people buried in mass graves in Iraq paid the price. If we cut and run now thousands more will pay the price again. I have enough blood on my hands and so does America we either finish our job or we lose part of our soul and many Iraqis lose their lives.

 

Just for the record no Iraqi has ever hurt me and I bode no Iraqi ill will. I have no idea where you got that idea at. When I was in Saudi there was not a day, and hour that went by that I did not pray that no innocent Iraqi would die because of what I did. There was not a day or an hour that I did not pray that the war would end soon. I took no pleasure in what I was doing and was very aware of the price being paid by civilian Iraqis and our men and women and the price Saddam extracted from the Kuwaiti people. There is not day in this war that I have not prayed for the Iraqi people along with our men and women and their families who pay a price that really can not be imagined.

 

I have however choked when I saw photos of the mass graves of people who died because America did not keep her word. Why we got in this war is now a mute point are we willing to cut and run and possibly repeat the killing fields of Cambodia and the mass graves of Iraq again? If so I say shame on us.