The Surge
After the elections overwhelmingly showed that Americans want to end the occupation of Iraq, Bush is going to propose INCREASING troops. I hope the Congress smacks down on this.
Why must he always do the opposite of the will of the people? Everyone knows that the problem Bush created in Iraq cannot be solved with military might. He's believed that was the solution from the beginning and has never let go of that idea.
Update: Two-thirds of Americans oppose this plan. Congress didn't get a say in it. Unpopular dictator.
Why must he always do the opposite of the will of the people? Everyone knows that the problem Bush created in Iraq cannot be solved with military might. He's believed that was the solution from the beginning and has never let go of that idea.
Update: Two-thirds of Americans oppose this plan. Congress didn't get a say in it. Unpopular dictator.
Labels: Politics
14 Comments:
Good grief! You can't pass this stuff off as "philosophical musings"!
Prior to the president's speech, about 45 percent of Americans favored the troop increase according to an AP poll
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/opinion/polls/main2338195.shtml
It's true that after the president's speech that support for the plan dropped by a solid 15 percent--but why, if the nation was so gung-ho about ending "the occupation of Iraq" from the time of last year's elections?
Da5id, you seem to have a habit of posting ill-supported opinions.
Yes they are gung-ho about ending the occupation by LEAVING not by increasing troops.
You simply ignored the information at the URL I supplied, apparently.
Who do you think is going to mistake your posts for "philosophical musings" when you can't get basic facts straight?
I did read the article and it says that before the speech 48% opposed the surge and 45% favored it so even then more people were against it. Then when they heard what it actually meant support for it dropped a lot more. Looks to me like the country doesn't support the surge. What is your point exactly other than saying my blog is mis-titled?
You spread inaccurate information, such as your notion that the nation voted to get the U.S. out of Iraq.
That's the point.
Plus, I have doubts that a majority of people opposed to the troop surge can accurately describe the policy.
You don't concern yourself over the details. You paint in broad strokes with little apparent concern over the details you obscure.
You get props for publishing my critical posts, though.
:)
So you don't think the elections were a mandate on the war policy? Seemed clear to me.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/491136p-413611c.html
Check out this article. Cleary the majority of Americans do not support the surge or any aspect of Bush's handling of the occupation.
1) No, I don't think the elections were a mandate on the war policy. The war was a factor in losses by Republicans, but conservatives still won quite a few races. Lieberman won in Connecticutt.
For that matter, many of the incoming Democrats ran as conservatives.
Polls reflecting discontent with Bush's handling of the war should not be confused with a particular alternative policy, such a phased deployment. Some of those unhappy with Bush's handling of Iraq would have liked to see more troops.
The issue now is that the phased deployment strategy is a big loser for the US as a nation if Democrats are incorrect that Iraq will have a better shot at stability with diminished US troop levels.
Do you really believe that? Sunni and Shiite will lay down their arms if there are no Americans to shoot at?
2) The article has nothing to do with "any aspect of Bush's handling of the occupation."
That is where you do your readers a disservice, Da5id.
There is no logic in concluding anything about a poll concerning approval of the troop surge other than the approval of the troop surge.
Yet you do it anyway.
1. I think if the U.S. withdraws the civil war will run its course. What good is the U.S. doing in the middle?
2. The article says that polls show Bush with a 33% job approval rating and I'm sure Iraq has a big part in that being so low. Any survey or poll I read about Bush's job in general or his handling of Iraq are low. Clearly the American people are not happy with it.
3. My readers can think on their own. I don't do anybody a service or a disservice. I just post my thoughts.
1) You have no idea how Saudi Arabia is likely to support the Sunnis and Iran the Shiites in an escalating conflict? And what if the Shiites come out on top (Iran with nukes and a good hold on much of the earth's oil supply). You good with that? How about Turkey's concern over the Kurds in northern Iraq? Nothing that should concern you?
2. None of which justifies the conclusion that mid-term election results constituted a referendum on continued military involvement in Iraq.
3. Baloney. Some of your readers might think for themselves, but the majority (very probably) look for easily-digestible opinions with which they already agree.
If you have no inclination to research your facts (as seems to be the case) then you do your reader a disservice by repeating inaccurate information.
Since you've done all that research, tell us how to fix Iraq?
How about you just admit that your conclusion about the tie between the election results and public sentiment about the Iraq War was wrong?
We don't "fix" Iraq. The goal is go give Iraq the opportunity to create a stable constitutional republic (what people tend to call a "democracy" for some reason).
That probably won't happen if the US withdraws within a year. Longer involvement may allow Iraq to stabilize if the Iraqi forces improve their capabilities.
[b]"Update: Two-thirds of Americans oppose this plan. Congress didn't get a say in it. Unpopular dictator."[/b]
Unphilosophical muser, more like.
Doesn't even identify the poll to which he refers.
Rounding up six points or so from this poll?
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-01/27427417.pdf
"Nearly half -- 45.3 percent -- of poll participants disagreed with the plan and another 8.4 percent somewhat disagreed."
Zogby poll, Jan 23
Were you aware that Lincoln lost public support for the Civil War?
"Unpopular dictator."
"Despite the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in 1863, Democratic "peace" candidates continued to play on the nation's misfortunes and racial sensitivities. Indeed, the mood of the North was such that Lincoln was convinced he would lose his re-election bid in November 1864."
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1994/ch6_p15.htm
Popular rule would bring about an eventual end to war, at least for the nations that practice it in wartime. Totalitarian regimes will win wars as democratic populations sour on conflict, thus allowing the enemy to win and impose peace on the vanquished.
wow heated debate
won't matter if the sun dies
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home