So, now that 72% of US troops in Iraq say it's time to leave

[gerryhatrick]

John Murtha has been saying it, and US troops agree.

Time to get out and let Iraqis deal with the civil and sectarian strife before them.

[geoffrey]

Could you possibly post this one more time? For me! Pleeeeaseee!! This is what, number four?

[Montgomery Burns]

72% of the troops would like to be at home with their wives and kids within the next 12 months?

I'm shocked to hear this. Shocked, I tell ya.

Why do leftists repeatedly show such contempt for the masses? Do you really think the public will fall for your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill? What soldier wouldn't want to be back home within a year with their family, sleeping in their own bed instead of a tent, and lugging 50 lbs of equipment all day in 40C heat? It's just plain common sense. I'm surprised the poll number (72%) is so low!

[BubberMiley]

Tehy're babies, babies I tell ya (or they're tired of killing them).

[tml12]

John Murtha has been saying it, and US troops agree.

Time to get out and let Iraqis deal with the civil and sectarian strife before them.

Gerry,

Your sense of humour on these posts are unbelievable.

Care to cite a source? But even if you do, I think Monty said it best.

Keep the humour coming...it does wonders for me at work.

[gerryhatrick]

72% of the troops would like to be at home with their wives and kids within the next 12 months?

No, 72% of the troops say the US should completely pull out of Iraq within the next 12 months.

Do you really think the public will fall for your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill? What soldier wouldn't want to be back home within a year with their family, sleeping in their own bed instead of a tent, and lugging 50 lbs of equipment all day in 40C heat?

I'm just sharing the facts of a Zogby poll, that's all.

Do you really think the public will fall for your attempt to lie and distort this poll?

[gerryhatrick]

John Murtha has been saying it, and US troops agree.

Time to get out and let Iraqis deal with the civil and sectarian strife before them.

Gerry,

Your sense of humour on these posts are unbelievable.

Care to cite a source? But even if you do, I think Monty said it best.

Keep the humour coming...it does wonders for me at work.

See geoffrey, THIS is why I posted this again here. Not everyone checks out the Canada/US relations area, and this is pretty important stuff.

For you tml12 I care very much to cite the source and may I also say I'm cheered to know I bring you some relief from the daily grind. Here ya'r:

The Zogby Poll of 944 soldiers, randomly sampled at several locations throughout the country, showed that 72% think the U.S. should exit Iraq in the next 12 months.

http://www.zogby.com/iraqwarpoll.cfm

How do you think Monty Burns manages to twist this to mean the soldiers just want to get themselves home to a snug bed rather than all soldiers out of Iraq as it plainly says? He must work for the White House press office!

[Wilber]

"The poll was conducted in conjunction with the Center for Peace and Global Studies at Le Moyne College, a Catholic school in Syracuse, New York. While the center promotes the study of conflict around the world, it is not an anti-war organization."

The "Center for Peace" is not an anti-war organization? An odd choice of names.

[gerryhatrick]

It is a Zogby poll. They are a respected pollster.

And since when did the appearance of the word "peace" immediately indicate the infusion of bias anyway? Has it come to that? Bush himself talks about desiring peace, that lefty freak.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Center for Peace and Global Studies is definitely an anti-war organization and - surprise! - they are a blame America outfit.

John Zogby has been a speaker at events sponsored by the Center.

John Zogby is an admitted Democrat.

Take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 70% by the end of the year. It's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question.

But Gerryhatrick is shocked that the troops would rather be out of Iraq and home with their families! Next thing you know he will be telling us that the troops are bitching! We've never heard of that before.

[gerryhatrick]

Take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 70% by the end of the year. It's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question.

Well, if that's the case then why do you portray it as troops just expressing that they want thier soft beds?

You're contradicting yourself Monty.

And if you believe you've found a liberal conspiracy at work then you're contradicting yourself again.

Which is it:

a. troops answered as they did because they want thier soft bed.

b. troops answered as they did because they want to agree with the Pentagon plan.

c. troops anwered as they did because the poll was skewed by that cheating lib John Zogby.

[Montgomery Burns]

Take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 70% by the end of the year. It's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question.

Well, if that's the case then why do you portray it as troops just expressing that they want thier soft beds?

You're contradicting yourself Monty.

And if you believe you've found a liberal conspiracy at work then you're contradicting yourself again.

Which is it:

a. troops answered as they did because they want thier soft bed.

b. troops answered as they did because they want to agree with the Pentagon plan.

c. troops anwered as they did because the poll was skewed by that cheating lib John Zogby.

It's common sense, Gerry. If you were a soldier in a foreign country, wouldn't you rather be home with your family, sleeping in your own bed with your wife, seeing your children?

And you've got to admit that Zogby was way off in the 2004 US election. He predicted Kerry would win--even though his final poll had Bush winning. Then on election day, his exit polls had Kerry with a big lead (to discourage Republicans from coming out to vote), and then to add to his record, he declared Kerry had won Ohio.

[gerryhatrick]

It's common sense, Gerry. If you were a soldier in a foreign country, wouldn't you rather be home with your family, sleeping in your own bed with your wife, seeing your children?

Don't play stupid, that's not good faith debate.

The poll was clear, it had nothing to do with soldiers wanting to go home back to thier loved ones and comforts as individuals.

The poll asks if the US should withdraw out of Iraq. To suggest that soldiers answer based purely upon thier own comforts is an ignorant insult to the troops.

[Drew Bedson]

So now, the President, Congress and the Senate have no power? Wow, soldiers rule!

Back to work guys - it was only a poll. When they introduce democracy into the military, you get to vote on what you do each day.

In the meantime - do what you do best - country, right or wrong. Back up your fellows and 'front towards enemy.'

Now, the meaning of this poll furor please? My cleaning lady told me she thought the US should stay in Iraq.

[gerryhatrick]

So now, the President, Congress and the Senate have no power? Wow, soldiers rule!

Back to work guys - it was only a poll. When they introduce democracy into the military, you get to vote on what you do each day.

In the meantime - do what you do best - country, right or wrong. Back up your fellows and 'front towards enemy.'

Now, the meaning of this poll furor please? My cleaning lady told me she thought the US should stay in Iraq.

Very humorous sarcasm, but what was the point?

The implications here have been clearly laid out. Have you read through the thread yet?

[Drew Bedson]

The implications here have been clearly laid out. Have you read through the thread yet?

What? You mean to say the troops are now in sinc with daily intelligence briefings in the White House and are appraised on how Iraq is doing as a whole in areas they don't get to see?

How under the table negotiations are going with Iran on nuclear aquisition which in turn revolves on how much pressure they are willing to risk by ratcheting up their operatives in Iraq?

Or, did you mean that the soldiers also have inside knowledge of how Suadi Arabia and other Gulf states are carrying out their war on terror within their own borders knowing the US is fully there to see this operation through?

What is the essential briefings these guys are getting that allows them to dictate foreign policy in this war on terror other than through their platoon postition?

Very hoping you can tell me. Otherwise, Monty Burns is the smartest guy on the board with his 'they all want to be home, who wouldn't?' observation.

[gerryhatrick]

What is the essential briefings these guys are getting that allows them to dictate foreign policy in this war on terror other than through their platoon postition?

I'm sorry, but I can't decipher any of your post. I picked this piece out at random. The answer is probably the same to most of the rest.....I didn't say that.

[Drew Bedson]

Well Gerry, the point is that the troops are a part of the military of the USA. They have a voice when they vote and other than that, they are bound by Military law. Hence, this article is meaningless and may as well have been put forth on an Oprah audience.

I'm sorry, but I can't decipher any of your post. I picked this piece out at random. The answer is probably the same to most of the rest.....I didn't say that.

Very interesting. You have posted about five times on this thread and knowing that the troops (unless there is a simmering forces wide mutiny about to happen) are doing a job which right or wrong they are bound to do, makes this thread redundent doesn't it?

So, guess we can all call it a night as you haven't really said anything other than what we know - '72% of troops think US should leave Iraq.'

And, of course, the mysterious and ominous ranting of

The implications here have been clearly laid out. Have you read through the thread yet?

somebody who couldn't deciepher any of my post. yet, is saying ....... what?

[gerryhatrick]

Very interesting. You have posted about five times on this thread and knowing that the troops (unless there is a simmering forces wide mutiny about to happen) are doing a job which right or wrong they are bound to do, makes this thread redundent doesn't it?

So your point is that the troops are required to do thier job. True point, but it's not really relavent to the thread.

My point is that the troops realize the truth. They're on the ground and know the realities firsthand, and this poll is indicitive of that and supports what John Murtha has been saying.

Your point that the troops are bound to do a job is moot.

[Drew Bedson]

My point is that the troops realize the truth. They're on the ground and know the realities firsthand, and this poll is indicitive of that and supports what John Murtha has been saying.

And my second point you found confusing. It was, to put in simpler terms for you to understand, the fact that they cannot see the entire picture from their platoon positions. That picture being an entire country's political weavings with things going on that they are not aware of en masse and so, everything they do is reactionary and but a tiny tactical piece of an overall strategic puzzle.

I am sure they can tell you what is going on in their area of operations but, as for the overall political situation - no. You yourself, were unable to grasp it as you refer to my brief example as 'unable to deciepher.' There is a lot more gong on that bullets flying and to see it, you have to step back much further than a sandbagged Humvee and, without preconcieved notions and outcomes in mind. Much of what is gong on is Iranian influenced and, is tied into the landscape of Nuclear aquisition and concessions desired in it's place. Others still are the waning Al Queda influence in the region and the 'quagmire' the Jihadists have found themselves in. A victory in itself. I also touched on some other reasons for the US being there where they positively influence anti terrorism activities by other countries. That action continues to be successful and, directly relates to what is going on in Iraq, but is not a factor in a soldier on the ground's point of view. In that aspect alone, this action has been well worth the effort.

So, to a soldier getting shot at when other cross region things are going positive, I can understand why they feel something might not be working. To you, with a world of information at your fingertips and your eyes still closed - inexcusable.

[gerryhatrick]

And my second point you found confusing. It was, to put in simpler terms for you to understand, the fact that they cannot see the entire picture from their platoon positions. That picture being an entire country's political weavings with things going on that they are not aware of en masse and so, everything they do is reactionary and but a tiny tactical piece of an overall strategic puzzle.

Again I think you're overstating it. The troops can decipher what's going on there in terms of the on the ground reality, even if it's local. They're not as isolated as you think, and they're not stupid.

One obvious interpretation of this poll is that they know thier presence is not helpful in a situation where they are the common enemy for an assortment of enemies. Time to let the nationalist insurgents turn focus on civilian-killing terrorists and allow self-preservation a chance of triumph over sectarian differences.

The only possible way that can succeed is with the absence of US troops.

[Drew Bedson]

Again I think you're overstating it. The troops can decipher what's going on there in terms of the on the ground reality, even if it's local.

For sure. I was sayng however that being localized doesn't give you anything more than an interpretation of what the immediate area you are in has for a situation. The implications of leaving are more than just immediate area and even regional. Iraq is only one piece of the entire issue hence, a soldier in one part of it is hardly qualified to make strategic assessments that affect countries of the region thousands of miles away from Iraq.

One obvious interpretation of this poll is that they know thier presence is not helpful in a situation where they are the common enemy for an assortment of enemies.

Won't argue on that one. However, people who have more information than they do as well as a combined political and military experience adding up to possibly millions of man hours having studied every military and political situation in man's history think it has a valid payoff. It seems that the risk and effort outweighs on the gournd considerations.

Time to let the nationalist insurgents turn focus on civilian-killing terrorists and allow self-preservation a chance of triumph over sectarian differences.

Soon Gerry, soon. Just a bit more strength and they'll be there.

The only possible way that can succeed is with the absence of US troops.

Iran wishes Bush agreed with you as does Al Queda in Saudi Arabia and every other nation in the area along with Hamas and Hezbollah. Unfortunately for them he does not.

[gerryhatrick]

For sure. I was sayng however that being localized doesn't give you anything more than an interpretation of what the immediate area you are in has for a situation.

The implications of leaving are more than just immediate area and even regional. Iraq is only one piece of the entire issue hence, a soldier in one part of it is hardly qualified to make strategic assessments that affect countries of the region thousands of miles away from Iraq.

Oh yes, soldiers are too stupid to make any strategic assessments.

And they don't talk to each other about the mission.

Any other points you want to make?

Iran wishes Bush agreed with you as does Al Queda in Saudi Arabia and every other nation in the area along with Hamas and Hezbollah. Unfortunately for them he does not.

Iran is very happy to see the US draining it's resources and political capital in Iraq.

That is really common sense.

The US has removed an enemy of Iran and set up an Iran-friendly government. On top of that, the US has weakened itself in the process.

Read this:

Iran: U.S has limited options

The war in Iraq has given Iran more power to do harm.

For further proof of how the botched war in Iraq has had major consequences beyond that country's borders, one need only look at how it has tied this nation's hands in dealing with Iraq's neighbor, Iran, and its well-advertised nuclear ambitions.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/0...edit-03-10.html

[Drew Bedson]

Iran is very happy to see the US draining it's resources and political capital in Iraq.

That is really common sense.

No they are not. They are very fightened by the outcome so far as they see American success where you see failure. Why the different prism Gerry?

The US has removed an enemy of Iran and set up an Iran-friendly government. On top of that, the US has weakened itself in the process.

Think you have it a bit backwards Gerry. They've removed a dictator who was in an international economic and military box and, have set up a government made up of Sunnis, Kurds and Secular Shia in a democracy with a market economy that will stabilize and prosper. This poses a serious threat to Iran's theocratic rule in a nation filled with mal contented young people reaching out to the modern world . At least 40% of the Iraqi government is diametricly opposed to Iran by religion, nationality, culture and birth and, the other 60%, while having less animosity towards Iran in general, are nonetheless Arabs, not Persian and, have a bond only in their sect of Islam. Another interesting fact, they are Iraqi, and are trying to keep the other 40% happy with compromises leaving Iran's problems very low on their priority list. Hardly a win for Iran and, definitely not what they wanted next door to them in place of a dictator who was, while under international sanctions and military restrictions, no threat to them whatsoever. A coalition government with Kurds, Sunnis and a Shia majority that is not even close to being in their pocket and, posses both a theological and an economic threat to any majority influence they had hoped to exert on the region.

Your link was interesting in the fact that it places the cart before the horse. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a reaction to things NOT going their way in Iraq, rather than going positive.

A Shiite Muslim nation, Iran could easily help Shiite forces in Iraq who do not want to share power with Sunni Muslims

Yes, and maybe the Cat in The Hat will jump in too. Shia in Iraq have no interest in being a Tehran puppet and would allow that only in the form of a poison pill as it has serious repercussions with the amount of aid taken. And, even if they did, the Sunnis and Kurds would react in kind ratcheting up pressure via allowing more Jihadist in or, the Kurds, if they believed any of their gains were at risk, could concievably use their territory as a Kurdish base to wreak havoc from with Iran. That doen't mean to say there are not parts of Iraq that Iranian operatives are active in but, nothing like a fifth columm by any means.

George Friedman of Stratfor (if the link won't work for you, PM me and I'll send you a copy of the report)

There is, however one huge loser in this scenario: Iran. Iran should be going wild over what is happening in Iraq, and indeed it is. We must never forget Iran's war with Iraq and the trauma it created in Iran. Iran is obsessed with the ideal of a neutral or pro-Iranian Iraq. The U.S. maneuverings with former Baathists terrify the Iranians. They have minimal confidence in the political cleverness of Iraqi Shia, given the historical record. A coalition of Americans and Baathists is Tehran's worst nightmare. Depending on Iraqi Shia to protect their interests in the face of this coalition -- interests the Shia in Iraq don't always share -- is not something they can do.

It is therefore not an accident that, as their primary national security interests have been torn to shreds, the Iranians have tried to raise the ante. In ranting about the Jews and the Holocaust and moving Israel to Alaska, the Iranians are trying to play the North Korea game. The North Koreans maximize their leverage by appearing to be nearly a nuclear power and more than a little nuts. This brings the U.S. -- and a bunch of other nations -- to the table to negotiate with them and give them money or grain or other little gifts.

The Iranians have deliberately made it clear that they are going to get nuclear weapons and have hinted that they might already have them. Then, Iran's president started playing the role of Kim Jong Il, making it clear that he is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.

Oh yes, soldiers are too stupid to make any strategic assessments.

And they don't talk to each other about the mission.

Any other points you want to make?

Here's more

What the Iranians want, of course, are guarantees on future Iraqi policy. They also want to make certain that their Baathist enemies are never again in a position to return to power. And they are expecting the United States to guarantee all these things. Of course the Sunnis are expecting the United States to guarantee their interests. The Kurds have always relied on the United States. And the Israelis want to make sure that the Iranian nuclear threat is not left to them to handle. Each has its own threat. The Sunnis can crank up the insurgency. The Shia can invite in more Iranians. The Kurds can try to instigate an uprising in Turkey (or Iraq, Iran or Syria). The Iranians can threaten Israel with nuclear weapons, and the Israelis can threaten a preemptive strike.

Washington does not want any of these things. That means the United States must juggle a series of nearly incompatible interests to get a situation where it can draw down its troops. On the other hand, the Shia need the Americans to protect them from the Sunnis and the Iranians. The Sunnis need the Americans to protect them from the Shia. The Kurds need the Americans to protect them from the Turks (and the Sunnis). The Iranians need the Americans to protect them from the Israelis. And the Israelis generally need the Americans.

Now you are telling me that a soldier in the feild can communicate with all these groups on a day to day basis to negotiate and get a full picture? Wow. What's their backdoor link to Tehran Gerry?

Now, how does all this tie in with decisions outside even Iraq and Iran? If the US leaves all the above in the lurch to sort it out by themselves, cooperation with Pakistan will more than likely cease as confidence in America's support will drop to zero, allowing terrorists free reign there which would possibly lead to the collapse of Musharif's rule and subsequent failure of Afganistan and terrorist strikes against India (who would come into the fray with a nuclear capability). Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries in the region will also stop anti Jihadist policies as a whole new Jihadist 'Tet Offensive' would gain momentum. This in turn, would strenthen Sunni power throughout the region and marginalize Shiite (or, in the very least do nothing to strenthen Shiite power) which is a very big step back for Iran.

Edit:

For further proof of how the botched war in Iraq has had major consequences beyond that country's borders, one need only look at how it has tied this nation's hands

'Tied this nations hands' ????

Iran can do three things; increase pressure marginally in Iraq (thereby opening themselves up even more for retaliation from the US, Sunnis and/or Kurds, a future Iraqi state of Kurds, Iraqi Shia and Sunnis) as well as exposing themselves on the ground in a conflict in a foreign nation. Bluster on the world stage in pretend brinkmanship or, they can use their influence with Hamas and Hezbollah to make terrorist action globally by proxy. Of course, the latter would be self destructive in that it would simply legitimize any action the US chose to take against Tehran directly or, allow for international action to go ahead in the form of economic, political or even military coalition action.

America on the other hand can carry on with action in Iraq and see the democratic process through, creating a stable Iraq which would place enormous pressure on Iran to reform or negotiate. They can continue supporting Sunni nations in the area by strengthening them and allowing them to prosper, thereby creating an economic threat to Tehran. They can also let the UN place sactions, let Israel bomb them, bomb them with some coalition friends or bomb them themselves, allow Russia, France, China or a host of other countries to do back door deals for them or, they can shift political alliances in Iraq to give the Iranians a compromise.

Or, they can just do nothing until Iran actually is capable of making a nuclear weapon and take it out with whatever combination of characters bombs they can put together at the time. Whatever the case, the 'hands tied' analogy is indicative of a person who seems to be trapped in a box with Michael Moore.

Of course, guys in a Humvee have all the info and contacts to sort this out right?

[gerryhatrick]

No they are not. They are very fightened by the outcome so far as they see American success where you see failure. Why the different prism Gerry?

Uh huh. Iran is seeing American success in Iraq. You and them both I guess.

Iran is happy for the reasons I stated. You have not responded to that.

Why the avoidance, Drew?