You might want to check the date on the article that you cited. 19 months is an eternity in the polling business. Just ask Hillary Clinton.

 

Here's one from 2007 "72% say that the presence of US forces is making security worse."

 

And another

"It is in the South where people most strongly believe that the withdrawal of the MNF will see the security situation improve. By a ratio of nearly seven to one the Shia dominated South feels that the situation will get "a great deal/little better" (69%) rather than "worse" (10%). In the Sunni North however opinion is more evenly divided – 46% feel it will get better and 37% feel it will get worse."

 

But these cited opinion polls must reinforce that I have "no grasp on anything political" or that only a "left wing wacko" can believe them.

Never said he was sane. Just that the leadership (more than one) would not push their cause to the brink of their own annihlation.

 

You must also consider that Nukes are forever. If Iran is allowed nuclear weapons, you must worry not only about the current leadership, but the leadership ten, fifteen or even fifty years down the road. Could an Al Qiada style group gain power either through political means or a coup? Religious zealots eager to bring about the end times through martyism? Could terrorists breach Irans nuclear facilities without needing to overthrow the entire government?

 

It's an awfully iffy proposition to allow Iran nukes.

Here's one from 2007 "72% say that the presence of US forces is making security worse."

 

And another

"It is in the South where people most strongly believe that the withdrawal of the MNF will see the security situation improve. By a ratio of nearly seven to one the Shia dominated South feels that the situation will get "a great deal/little better" (69%) rather than "worse" (10%). In the Sunni North however opinion is more evenly divided – 46% feel it will get better and 37% feel it will get worse."

 

But these cited opinion polls must reinforce that I have "no grasp on anything political" or that only a "left wing wacko" can believe them.

Still an old poll. Most people agree, even Gen. Petraeus' and the Bush administration's harshest critics in the US Senate, that things have improved since last August. Still, the survey does not support your original point:

 

When should US forces leave?

47% say "leave immediately"

-

by far the highest support for immediate departure on record

(it was 35% in February). 34% say stay until security is restored, 10% say stay until the Iraqi government is stronger. Only 2% say "remain longer but leave eventually".

And, for the record, I have never called you a "left wing wacko," nor have I made any other personal attacks against you. So, please save that line for somebody else or better yet, simply let it go.

You must also consider that Nukes are forever. If Iran is allowed nuclear weapons, you must worry not only about the current leadership, but the leadership ten, fifteen or even fifty years down the road. Could an Al Qiada style group gain power either through political means or a coup? Religious zealots eager to bring about the end times through martyism? Could terrorists breach Irans nuclear facilities without needing to overthrow the entire government?

 

It's an awfully iffy proposition to allow Iran nukes.

 

I could say the exact same thing about Pakistan. But they have nukes.

Still an old poll. Most people agree, even Gen. Petraeus' and the Bush administration's harshest critics in the US Senate, that things have improved since last August. Still, the survey does not support your original point:

 

When should US forces leave?

47% say "leave immediately"

-

by far the highest support for immediate departure on record

(it was 35% in February). 34% say stay until security is restored, 10% say stay until the Iraqi government is stronger. Only 2% say "remain longer but leave eventually".

And, for the record, I have never called you a "left wing wacko," nor have I made any other personal attacks against you. So, please save that line for somebody else or better yet, simply let it go.

 

Some agree that things have improved in the areas where there are more US troops. I'll concede that violence is down but one of the main goals of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to stabilize the country and that hasn't happened. If I put 100 cops in a bad neighborhood crime will go down in the neighborhood but that doesn't mean the whole city is better.

I thought that it was traceable for weapons to be found in Iraq too...

 

It is, if you have good intelligence and a willingness to look at that intelligence with an objective eye.

Some agree that things have improved in the areas where there are more US troops. I'll concede that violence is down but one of the main goals of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to stabilize the country and that hasn't happened. If I put 100 cops in a bad neighborhood crime will go down in the neighborhood but that doesn't mean the whole city is better.

If people lined up to apply for jobs as cops are no longer getting blown up in their tracks, that is progress. Iraq's troops played a big role recently in quelling violence in and around Basra. When Iraqi governors are no longer being killed at a rate of one every month or two, that is progress.

 

More than a decade passed between our own Declaration of Independence and the signing of the US Constitution. Our forefathers set a pretty high standard, but Democrats are demanding much more of the Iraqi people. I suspect Pelosi, Reid, and their kindred spirits in Congress do not really expect the Iraqis to do the job much quicker than Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the founders but constantly pretending that they do sure makes for good politics.

If people lined up to apply for jobs as cops are no longer getting blown up in their tracks, that is progress. Iraq's troops played a big role recently in quelling violence in and around Basra. When Iraqi governors are no longer being killed at a rate of one every month or two, that is progress.

 

More than a decade passed between our own Declaration of Independence and the signing of the US Constitution. Our forefathers set a pretty high standard, but Democrats are demanding much more of the Iraqi people. I suspect Pelosi, Reid, and their kindred spirits in Congress do not really expect the Iraqis to do the job much quicker than Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the founders but constantly pretending that they do sure makes for good politics.

 

Totally different situation. France didn't invade the colonies and told us to become a Republic and then occupied while we figured things out. Plus we weren't a nation drawn up after a major wold war with no regard to ethnic, or religious backgrounds. Also, Iran had a big role in getting Al Sadr to back off in Basra. "And a source close to the prime minister says that Moqtada Sadr's order to cease fighting came at the instigation of Iran."

Totally different situation. France didn't invade the colonies and told us to become a Republic and then occupied while we figured things out. Plus we weren't a nation drawn up after a major wold war with no regard to ethnic, or religious backgrounds. Also, Iran had a big role in getting Al Sadr to back off in Basra. "And a source close to the prime minister says that Moqtada Sadr's order to cease fighting came at the instigation of Iran."

You seem more sure that Iran called off the Al Sadr dogs than the source you cited.

Tehran role?

 

The Mehdi militiamen withdrew from the streets after six days of fighting, but they appear to have taken their arms with them, defying Prime Minister Maliki's initial demand that all militia-held medium and heavy weapons be surrendered.

 

The political leadership of Iraq is saying that there was no deal with the Mehdi militia to stop the fighting.

Is it really so hard to give some credit to our own troops and the Iraqis that they have trained for the improving conditions in Iraq?

You seem more sure that Iran called off the Al Sadr dogs than the source you cited.

 

Tehran role?

 

 

The Mehdi militiamen withdrew from the streets after six days of fighting, but they appear to have taken their arms with them, defying Prime Minister Maliki's initial demand that all militia-held medium and heavy weapons be surrendered.

 

 

The political leadership of Iraq is saying that there was no deal with the Mehdi militia to stop the fighting.

Is it really so hard to give some credit to our own troops and the Iraqis that they have trained for the improving conditions in Iraq?

 

Not at all, but it is time to come home, and welcome them on a great victory (for who/what well that is what we can debate on, thanks to them)

 

God Bless Our Troops!

Not at all, but it is time to come home, and welcome them on a great victory (for who/what well that is what we can debate on, thanks to them)

 

God Bless Our Troops!

 

:thumb:

Bring them home. We won the war. Didn't the President play dress-up and land on an aircraft carrier to let us all know that?

 

Also when Iraqi politicians say that Iran helped end violence in Basra, I think they would know. I think our forces had some role and I commend them for it, as I commend the Iraqis but southern Iraq and the Iraqi government is pretty beholden to Tehran.

 

We're hearing talk from McCain, Patreaus, and the administration that Iran is training Al Qaeda, building nukes, and are a threat to the US. We've seen this dog and pony show before and I don't want to see any more Americans killed over another war based on lies when the real Al Qaeda and the Taliban are still in Afghanistan.

For some of us in this thread who like to talk about gas prices.... my bold prediction.. the 2nd we hit Iran, the next day gas is $8.25.

What will happen to gas prices when a nuclear armed Iran repeats its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

What will happen to gas prices when a nuclear armed Iran repeats its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

 

I'm just telling you right now oil is there main weapon. Same thing with Venzuela. I firmly believe it's the only reason we haven't hit Iran yet.

 

Gas goes over 8.00 a gallon, that will shut down half the US.

More than a decade passed between our own Declaration of Independence and the signing of the US Constitution. Our forefathers set a pretty high standard, but Democrats are demanding much more of the Iraqi people. I suspect Pelosi, Reid, and their kindred spirits in Congress do not really expect the Iraqis to do the job much quicker than Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the founders but constantly pretending that they do sure makes for good politics.

 

 

Comparing present-day Iraq to early post-Revolution America is quite an insult to the Founding Fathers. Why shouldn't we demand much more of the Iraqi people? Compared to the young United States in the 1780's the Iraqis have had everything handed to them on a silver platter. And what have they done with it? They have sabotaged their oil infrastructure. They have stood idle while IED's are set and detonated. They have butchered their own countrymen and children. The contrasts are striking. The leaders and citizens of the United States in the late 18th century threw off the colonial rule of the most powerful country on earth. Then they went to work building our country. On their own. Peacefully for over eight decades. The Iraqis, on the other hand, after having their oppressive leader overthrown for them, have been the beneficiaries of five years of American largesse. What have they done with it? Very little. No agreement to share oil revenue. Not even simple agreement to live together in reasonable civility. We have patiently held their country together for over five years, preventing its total collapse, and we have been rewarded with this? Why shouldn't we demand much more of the Iraqi people?