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

[KrustyKidd]

Hi Gerry, I managed, after great difficulty to get my old moniker back on the board so hope you will accept my appoligies for the switch in transition. And, hope you will treat me, in this KK monker with the same respect you did with my real name. Thanks - Drew

To continue -

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

That is really common sense.

Addressing directly right now Gerry.

The US can keep this up for years, congress just approved more. Draining is hardly a good word to use when the commitment has been reinforced by the president both political capital-wise and monetary as Bush has this week stated on more than one occasion that they're going to be there for quite a while still. Hardly the talk of a country on the verge of giving up.

If Iran is happy with the way things are going, they certainly have a strange way to say they are. In order to gain a voice or a thought from the US in the negotiations between all the parties in Iraq, they have to come off like lunatics and holocost deniers as well as somebody that has a nuclear weapon when they are at least a year away from having the material to START making one with. Hardly the actions of somebody that is content with the way their world around them is shaping out to become.

Yes, when Iran says they will bomb Israel when they have the capability and to move all the Jews to Alaska as the Holocost is a figment of our collective imagination, it is a voice that cries out in smug satisfaction that everything is going just the way they want it to. What is it they're after Gerry? I mean, Russia offers them fuel rods, the EU money. Israel we all know will not allow them to even come close to having a weapon so what is all the bluster about?

An Iraqi Shia dominated goverment in Iraq that is kowtowing to Sunni and Kurdish minorities. All without them having a say in it. They simply want the US to consider their position.

Ya, things going their way my ass. A free Iraq with nothing in it whatsoever for them but a lot of explaining to do to a disenfranchised population. The end of Islamic rule as they knew it. Very scary indeed Gerry. I suppose the only 'upside' is that they get to watch the US get political and strategic capital as they settle the country. Complete with contracts for hard bases as well to maintain a non occupational presence in the immediate region for decades to come. Wow, another winner for Iran - twsenty thousand US soldiers with enogh equipment to support another eighty. All within a couple of hundred miles of their border. Oh Joy!

Ya, with the closure of the Jihadist pipeline (Jordan and Saudi Arabia with Syria off and on by the Sunnis) they seem to be comming into the political rather than the insurgentcy camp. This is alarming to the Iranians who see this as a further erroding of their influence. But, hopefully, there is enogh anti government Shiites around who don't mind listening to their Iranian 'advisors' rather than their Shiite fellow Iraqis.

Now, I suppose you got all that from a guy in a Humvee right?

[gerryhatrick]

The US can keep this up for years, congress just approved more. Draining is hardly a good word to use when the commitment has been reinforced by the president both political capital-wise and monetary as Bush has this week stated on more than one occasion that they're going to be there for quite a while still. Hardly the talk of a country on the verge of giving up.

Well Krusty/Drew, you seem to confuse the term "draining" with the phrase "giving up".

It's undeniably true that the Iraq war is draining resources. That fact stands alone, independent of the Presidents resolve.

Resources are being drained and the US military is being battle worn. That makes the enemies of the US happy.

[Nocrap]

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?

Our local newspaper (part of the Osprey Group) ran a full page story on Mike and Joan Curtin, parents of the first American soldier killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. Though the family at first supported the invasion, they now feel that it's time to bring the soldiers home. The newspaper goes on to say that a recent gallup poll shows that only 22% of Americans feel that they can win the war, and 60% feel the same as the Curtins. The article is not yet up on Osprey's website but this is a good link to the poll 2 out of 3 Americans want to pull out of Iraq

[gerryhatrick]

Our local newspaper (part of the Osprey Group) ran a full page story on Mike and Joan Curtin, parents of the first American soldier killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. Though the family at first supported the invasion, they now feel that it's time to bring the soldiers home. The newspaper goes on to say that a recent gallup poll shows that only 22% of Americans feel that they can win the war, and 60% feel the same as the Curtins. The article is not yet up on Osprey's website but this is a good link to the poll 2 out of 3 Americans want to pull out of Iraq

Stories about what families think and polls on Americans are interesting, but the fact that 72% of American SOLDIERS believe they should get out of there (the USA, not just the soldiers personally as how some rightwingers are trying to spin it here) is most telling.

They are on the ground and they obviously know something that Bush and Rummy aren't telling us.

[newbie]

Stories about what families think and polls on Americans are interesting, but the fact that 72% of American SOLDIERS believe they should get out of there (the USA, not just the soldiers personally as how some rightwingers are trying to spin it here) is most telling.

They are on the ground and they obviously know something that Bush and Rummy aren't telling us.

Well, Pat Robertson, a CNN reporter is on the ground in Iraq and had this to say on Larry King last night:

The mood is one of confusion. It's one of severe mental stress and strain. Families that I talk to worry because they don't know when they go out in the morning if they'll come home, they don't know when their children go out to school if their children will come back. They don't know who's behind the violence.

They know they could be mugged that there would be policemen to turn to. They know they could have their homes robbed at gunpoint and there's nobody to call who's going to come and help them.

There are insurgents who they fear and sectarian death squads, religious death squads whom they fear. They don't know whose side the Iranians are on, whose side the Syrians are on, exactly what the motives of the United States are. There's a lot of confusion.

When you talk to people it's that mental stress and strain that really comes through. After three years of war if you imagine living through that confusion and that fear every single day, it's a weight that really sits heavily on people here

[gerryhatrick]

Stories about what families think and polls on Americans are interesting, but the fact that 72% of American SOLDIERS believe they should get out of there (the USA, not just the soldiers personally as how some rightwingers are trying to spin it here) is most telling.

They are on the ground and they obviously know something that Bush and Rummy aren't telling us.

Well, Pat Robertson, a CNN reporter is on the ground in Iraq and had this to say on Larry King last night:

The mood is one of confusion. It's one of severe mental stress and strain. Families that I talk to worry because they don't know when they go out in the morning if they'll come home, they don't know when their children go out to school if their children will come back. They don't know who's behind the violence.

They know they could be mugged that there would be policemen to turn to. They know they could have their homes robbed at gunpoint and there's nobody to call who's going to come and help them.

There are insurgents who they fear and sectarian death squads, religious death squads whom they fear. They don't know whose side the Iranians are on, whose side the Syrians are on, exactly what the motives of the United States are. There's a lot of confusion.

When you talk to people it's that mental stress and strain that really comes through. After three years of war if you imagine living through that confusion and that fear every single day, it's a weight that really sits heavily on people here

That's interesting. The reply I gave nocrap was referencing the families of soldiers though, not Iraqis.

I think the bottom line is you have 72% of troops who want the US out of Iraq.

Not far from that line is the fact that about half of Iraqis believe attacks on coalition troops are justified and just over 80% want coalition troops to leave.

How f#$%king obvious does the truth have to be before Bush grabs onto it? Murtha is so obviously correct in saying that the insurgents and the terrorists are employed in a common cause: fighting the USA.

If the USA gets out the 20,000 insurgents will turn on the 1000 foreign terrorists they're tolerating now.

The idea that the USA needs to stay there is devoid of logic.

[geoffrey]

So any majority opinion should result in action? That's a dangerous path to go down. If most Iraqi's want the US gone, they should go? If most Albertans want to carry sidearms, they should? Ect. Ect.

Personally I don't care about polls, there is a morally right and wrong choice. Most people can't make that decision based on their limited expertise on the topic. Leave it to the experts.

I'm starting to believe the democracy principle is consistantly flawed.

[KrustyKidd]

It's undeniably true that the Iraq war is draining resources. That fact stands alone, independent of the Presidents resolve.

Resources are being drained and the US military is being battle worn. That makes the enemies of the US happy.

Happy that the US is gong to stay there until they succeeed? Or, until the countries in the area succeed in their struggle? An Iraq in turmoil with Sunni power is not a good thing for Iran, nor is a democratic one. So, happy? Possibly frightened and wondering how the US can keep this up and still have a robust economy. 'Happy' is not an apt word as they are more scared than anything else. And, who can blame them? Their options are few and, their 'hands are tied.'

If the USA gets out the 20,000 insurgents will turn on the 1000 foreign terrorists they're tolerating now.

Get some intelligence Gerry. Already the Sunnis have turned on the Jihadists. They use them to gain power with the US politically. When the US doesn't place enough pressure on the Shiites, the Sunnis allow more of them to come in and operate. When the US gives them concessions with the backing of the Shiites, they turn them in. Two of the three routes into the country are already closed with the third being a trickle as they see the political climate change.

Stratfor Report

With the momentum of the political process increasing, the leaders of the Sunni tribes in Anbar could have determined that they can gain more on the political front by constricting jihadist op

erations than by supporting suicide bombers on the military front. As the political process becomes increasingly important to them, the Sunni tribes have realized that the jihadists' marginal usefulness is decreasing -- given the difference in their ultimate objectives -- and that eventually the jihadists will pose a threat to them.

Now, you didn't address the broader reasons for the operation in Iraq and how it affects the entire situation of the ME and Far East. Perhaps from you perch on the Humvee you could tell us how the average soldier guages all this?

The idea that the USA needs to stay there is devoid of logic.

Wondering what kind of support in general any country committed to fighting terrorism can expect from the US if they begin to take casualties? I would assume that when the going gets tough, the US just leaves in your world so, in most of the world, where Jihadists and conservative Wahhabists hold sway with the population, the regimes in power should simply captitulate as no support can be expected. What is your solution to Saudi Arabia falling Gerry? That is an almost certainty is the US leaves Iraq? Pakestan as well, what is your slolution to further attacks on India by Jihadists?

They are on the ground and they obviously know something that Bush and Rummy aren't telling us.

No Gerry. Bush and Rummy I am sure know soldiers are dying and are getting shot at as they mention it every press conference and speach. I am sure that soldiers are not privy to benchmarks in political achievements either. Just as you had no knowledge of how the insurgency is faltering because of same.

So any majority opinion should result in action? That's a dangerous path to go down. If most Iraqi's want the US gone, they should go? If most Albertans want to carry sidearms, they should? Ect. Ect.

How about, no taxes but more services? I mean, I think I should have more money and ...... more public stuff. therefore, let's get rid of whoever is in charge and mmake it so. When they don't produce, get rid of them. Heck, maybe tommorow, we will all get private intelligence reports and be able to speak with all parties of the insurgency, military from fifty countries and have our own staff to analize the information. Just like Gerry's guys in the Humvees do.

Note to Gerry: The operation in Iraq is a sort of side show on the war on terror. While called 'the Front' it is really a sort of large stepping stone event sort of thing. If it fails, the show keeps on rolling. If it succeeds, the War goes easier by (just guestimating) thirty percent. You on the other hand, view it as a stand alone operation. Not connected with anything else. I doubt not how a twenty five year old soldier thinks the same as his area of operations is fairly local.

Oh, is Al Queda in Saudi Arabia happy the US is 'draining their resources in Iraq?' Is that why thier presence in Iraq is completely lacking as they fight for survival in SA, a previous stronghold? See, it all is interconnected Gerry. Get out of the Humvee for a moment and start to think strategic rather than day to day, minute to minute tactical.

[gerryhatrick]

Wondering what kind of support in general any country committed to fighting terrorism can expect from the US if they begin to take casualties? I would assume that when the going gets tough, the US just leaves in your world so, in most of the world, where Jihadists and conservative Wahhabists hold sway with the population, the regimes in power should simply captitulate as no support can be expected. What is your solution to Saudi Arabia falling Gerry? That is an almost certainty is the US leaves Iraq? Pakestan as well, what is your slolution to further attacks on India by Jihadists?

Oh, so the US has to stay in Iraq or the entire region will go to hell? Sure KK, if you say so.

In my "world" when it makes logical sense to leave then you leave. It has nothing to do with the "going gets tough". The going has been tough for a while, but that's not the issue. The issue is can the USA effect any positive result by staying, and clearly the answer is no.

Foreign terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and US soldiers all have one thing in common....they want the USA out of Iraq.

You can throw out your little stories from a think tank and claim that the insurgents are turning on thier terrorist pals, and that is true in some cases I'm sure. But don't wrap yourself in a Rumsfeld-ish optomism over it. There are thousands who will never put down arms or turn against the Jihadists until the USA is out of Iraq.

Note to Gerry: The operation in Iraq is a sort of side show on the war on terror. While called 'the Front' it is really a sort of large stepping stone event sort of thing. If it fails, the show keeps on rolling. If it succeeds, the War goes easier by (just guestimating) thirty percent.

Newsflash for KK: It is failing. If the USA stays it is guaranteed to fail. If they leave there's a chance for Iraq. Perhaps you and other militarists aren't considering the wellfare of Iraq itself when you speak of "success" or "failure". I sense that. I sense that what you're really talking about is the perception of power the USA can maintain. Saving face, as it were.

[KrustyKidd]

You can throw out your little stories from a think tank

Stratfor

Who Uses Stratfor Intelligence?

Hedge Fund Managers rely on Stratfor intelligence to identify future market opportunities.

Global Finance, Insurance and Investment Experts use Stratfor intelligence to stay prepared for market fluctuations that may impact their clients’ businesses.

Oil & Gas Executives consult with Stratfor to assess investment avenues and market volatility.

Government & Military Leaders use Stratfor OSINT to gain insights on triggers affecting geopolitical events and potential movements around the world.

Manufacturers employ Stratfor to evaluate emerging markets, resource fluctuations and potential regional threats in the coming years.

Logistics Professionals stay informed on what disruptions could impact their supply chains with Stratfor intelligence.

They charge about three grand a year for basic and a few hundred for each report. Why can they? Because it is as accurate as can be as those who pay for it, have lots more than agenda on the line. You on the other hand have only opinion pieces that use such biased prose as

botched war, tied this nation's hands, Cheney took out his sabers for their weekly rattling,

winged a lawyer in Texas etc.

Very objective using faulty 'givens' to make further points that of course, will be erronous. No wonder you have been wrong on just about every point.

Oh, to go further into your news source again

Bush administration needs to pursue every possible diplomatic option to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons before seriously considering military ones.

I would say the Bush admin has been way ahead of this writer in that Iran is in open negotiations over Iraq with the US at this time. Hardly a 'tied hands' affair. An option that the writer never considered nor had you. It's like between the two of you, you are playing with a deck of 31.

In my "world" when it makes logical sense to leave then you leave.

Uh oh. Things are tough, we just dismantled an entire corrupt government in a country of 25 million people in an extremely volitile region and things are not running smooth. We better pull out now.

The issue is can the USA effect any positive result by staying, and clearly the answer is no.

Three elections, three racially religious and culturally opposing sides involved in the political process for the first time, the entire region actively engaged in anti Jihadist efforts, Iran sitting down to talk directly and publicly. Please be more specific where the problem lies Gerry. After all, it is so clear right?

Foreign terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and US soldiers all have one thing in common....they want the USA out of Iraq.

Quite the quorum to support your point, and they all have other things in common - they don't have a vote in this matter, except for the US soldiers they all want to take over Iraq under their rule, they have no knowledge of day to day stategic events in and around Iraq and the broader region, have no access to classified intelligence reports, political briefs and base everything they do on tactical action and reaction rather than strategic.

If the USA stays it is guaranteed to fail.

It has already succeeded in it's main goals.

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

That is really common sense.

Yes, so much that they are willing to suffer embarassment to their people and deal face to face with the Great Satan rather than sit back and chorttle. Between doing an about face in front of sixty million Iranians, nuclear brinkmanship without nuclear weapons and knowing they will never have them do you get the slightest inkling that they are not as happy as you portray them to be Gerry?

US to talk to Iran on Iraq

Iranian officials have said the talks would cover only Iraq, not Iran's nuclear programme or other areas of dispute with Washington. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word in all matters of state, has already approved the US-Iranian talks.

I sense that. I sense that what you're really talking about is the perception of power the USA can maintain. Saving face, as it were.

Close but no cigar. Not perception but total shift in policy. Not installing dictators and supporting corrupt regimes but allowing democratic votes and pressuring corrupt regimes to change and allow human rights and such. Bottom up change rather than top down. Not saving face but being there to support those who have stuck their neck out to take action against anti civilization forces. It has a lot more equity in it than say, forcing a coup and installing another future problem in a US friendly dictator. That incidently was the brillience in disolving the Iraqi armed forces. While making the here and now more difficult, it paved the way for greater cooperation across the region.

Yes, things are working, elections and a government in place, military gathering strength, Jihadists being denied operating room by Sunnis who in turn are engaging in the political process, Iran feels it is in their best interest to negotiate. Ya, time to cut and run

[gerryhatrick]

You need to try to focus in on something and address it KK.

Foreign terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and US soldiers all have one thing in common....they want the USA out of Iraq.

This is undeniable. Not opinion, fact.

It's also fact that insurgents and terrorists have the USA as a common enemy. Also a fact. If you want to pin your hopes on a think tank anecdote about some Sunni insurgents turning on the terrorists they've previously helped go ahead. It doesn't change the facts I've provided, which support the wisdom and logic of a US withdrawal.

The US wants to help...wants to make things better in Iraq, yes. In spite of all good intentions it's no longer possible for them to help there. They have broken too much china in the shop, so to speak. They want to help clean up and, but the shop-keeper just wants them to leave.

[KrustyKidd]

You need to try to focus in on something and address it KK.

Ok. You are wrong about Iraq going badly for the above reasons I brought forth.

If you wish me to address another point, Iraq is a broader issue than you seem to be able to grasp. Another point; your sources for facts are opinion columnests so I know why your rationale is faulty.

Foreign terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and US soldiers all have one thing in common....they want the USA out of Iraq.

Quite the quorum to support your point, and they all have other things in common - they don't have a vote in this matter, except for the US soldiers they all want to take over Iraq under their rule, they have no knowledge of day to day stategic events in and around Iraq and the broader region, have no access to classified intelligence reports, political briefs and base everything they do on tactical action and reaction rather than strategic.

it doesn't change the facts I've provided

Gerry, you gave an opinion piece to support your poll. Then parroted off how these guys in Humvees see all and know all in the political and military areas of countries they are not even in. Then went on about how Iran is so happy yet, they are not, instead, they are forced to deal with the hard reality that Iraq is working, otherwise, they wouldn't go close to a negotiating table.

Also a fact. If you want to pin your hopes on a think tank anecdote about some Sunni insurgents turning on the terrorists they've previously helped go ahead.

I don't. I metioned this as one of the various ways in which people are going to the political table rather than simply shooting. You seemed to be the one 'pinned' to it as you selectively gloss over the rest of the points I bring up. Then again, you have been confused on this enlarged situation right from your seventh post on this threads "The implications here have been clearly laid out. Have you read through the thread yet?" and "I'm sorry, but I can't decipher any of your post. I picked this piece out at random."

Possibly to attempt to understand how wrong you really are, you might actually read some of the information put forward to you sometime rather than sit on a poll that Monty actually blew out of the water in his first post.

In spite of all good intentions it's no longer possible for them to help there.

Because of a poll and an opinion columnest? Yes indeed. Good facts.

[gerryhatrick]

Another point; your sources for facts are opinion columnests so I know why your rationale is faulty.

How so?

My sources are scientific polls.

The majority of US troops want the US out of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want the US out. Nearly half of Iraqis believe attacks on US troops are justified.

Insurgents and terrorists are fighting US troops...US troops are the common enemy.

Where is the opinion in this KK?

[KrustyKidd]

The opinion post you brought out here.

If you are relying on a poll to make a point then you might use one which asks people actually able to correlate the information which tells them if overall the War on Terror is being won or lost. Then have them say if the US shold leave Iraq.

Put forth as is, it is kind of like going onto a Ford assembly line and taking a poll on whether the people should make blue cars or red that week. Then acting on that information. Hardly based on anything knowledgeable such as stock, orders, share prices and market demands but, you would get just as qualified an opinion though. And, be just as silly to act on it.

Unless of course, you didn't have any facts, then your color preference would shine through.

Red right Gerry? All cars should be red?

[gerryhatrick]

Krusty, your last post was nonsensical.

Here's the topic for you:

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.

and here are the facts that support it:

The majority of US troops want the US out of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want the US out. Nearly half of Iraqis believe attacks on US troops are justified.

Insurgents and terrorists are fighting US troops...US troops are the common enemy.

[KrustyKidd]

Yes Gerry. Got that the first time

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

So did Monty

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!

[gerryhatrick]

Yes Gerry. Got that the first time

So did Monty

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!

It's always the same thing with rightwingers.....answer the same points for them over and over and over.

The poll was specific. It had nothing to do with soldiers wanting to get out for personal comfort reasons, it was asking if the US should completely withdraw within a year.

I'll repost the same answer I gave Monty since you are reduced to using his posts as your own:

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.

So, now Monty AND you have insulted US troops. Nice work.

[KrustyKidd]

The poll was specific. It had nothing to do with soldiers wanting to get out for personal comfort reasons, it was asking if the US should completely withdraw within a year.

Well, i seem to be in a time warp or something watching you begin this thread all over again making the same points. I suppose I will simply restate what I have already said.

That is that it is only a human interest poll in that the soldiers do not have the full information to base their sucessfulness on as the overall success goes well beyond Iraq and the immediate here and now. Without the training, information, political contacts, both front and back door as well as the authority to deal with presidents and statesmen they don't have the full picture nor are they expected to. Leaving them to gague their opinion on whether or not they got shot at that particular day, a method of deciding the left likes a lot as it is pure emotionalism without full facts.

So, now Monty AND you have insulted US troops. Nice work.

No. Soldiers are human and humans like comfort. When I was one I did my best to stay dry.

[gerryhatrick]

Well, i seem to be in a time warp or something watching you begin this thread all over again making the same points.

I only repeated them because you quite obviously missed them the first time and repeated the idiotic assertion by Monty that the poll somehow indicated soldiers wanted to personally get home to thier comforts.

That ignores the poll question and insults soldiers.

No. Soldiers are human and humans like comfort. When I was one I did my best to stay dry.

Oh. I guess you still don't get it.

[Riverwind]

No. Soldiers are human and humans like comfort. When I was one I did my best to stay dry.

Oh. I guess you still don't get it.

Gerry, I have to agree with Krusty and MB on this point. A gov't should not make policy based on the opinion of the soldiers who have a vested interest in getting out of the danger area as soon as possible. Even if the soldiers were asked to not think about their personal situation when the were asked the questions it is unlikely that many would do so.

[KrustyKidd]

That ignores the poll question

And the question was? I would be very interested to see the question posed to the guys and how or what the choices were.

Now, did those soldiers take into consideration events unfolding in countries outside of Iraq that are part of the reason for the action there to begin with? I doubt it as you seem to be under the impression that Iraq is the end result of everything when it is only a benchmark in the War on Terror. Kind of like blue printing an engine and realizing you have the wrong gasket. You hit a snag and work around it, ultimitely getting the job done. The mechanic doing the work though feels that it may be a crisis as that is his role and his entire being is in that engine job.

The rebuilding of the engine was never the purpose or end result but, it made the antique Ford a much nicere display vehicle to take to shows around the country and produce millions of dollars in advertising revenue. The engine job was pricesless in the grand scheme of things and, to scrap it would have turned the entire ad campaign off and necessetated revamping it - a very costly proceedurre.

You have to go beyond what is put in front of you Gerry.

Oh. I guess you still don't get it.

No Gerry, I do get what you are saying - that US troops should leave Iraq because the soldiers there feel that they are having little or no effect. I get it. And, what's more, can understand why soldiers would feel that way.

What you don't get is that this is only a part of an entire global operation that is succeeding. And, events of late have shown that it is going quite well, much better than I anticipated, even in Iraq for reasons that these soldiers would have absolutely no knowledge of unless they werre privy to inner circle briefings of the President and Iraqi, Iranian and other top bureaucrats You yourself were under the impression that Iran was so happy the US were supposedly wasting their time and resources yet are obvisously so distrought they are actually doing direct negotiations with the US as Iraq is going the US's way and not Iran's. So, if a well read politicaly interested person such as yourself doesn't have a shmick, how do you think a soldier in the feild who has no interest would?

Kind of like this 'nonsensical' post you can't seem to understand.

Your argument

Put forth as is, it is kind of like going onto a Ford assembly line and taking a poll on whether the people should make blue cars or red that week. Then acting on that information. Hardly based on anything knowledgeable such as stock, orders, share prices and market demands but, you would get just as qualified an opinion though. And, be just as silly to act on it.

Unless of course, you didn't have any facts, then your color preference would shine through.

Red right Gerry? All cars should be red?

Beggining to make sense now? The soldiers are, by nature soldiers and as such, only deal with tactical information and situations. Thus, are not qualified to make accurate assesments on strategic issues. Read the above quote of the car factory analogy and, if that makes sense to you to allow workers to make management and marketing decisions from the factory floor then I suppose no argument will disuade you from your reality.

And, please tell me as you only have one 'fact,' and therefore must know it from top to bottom, what was the poll question?

[gerryhatrick]

Troops serving in Iraq:

29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months

You can read into it what you like.

Troops wishing for their comfy beds...or troops with no intelligence or understanding of the political realities.

Just stupid soft troops wishing for home, right?

I choose to think it indicates troops on the ground realize certain truths, such as the ones John Murtha is speaking of.

You are assuming some higher vision because you repeat the neo-con/Bush narrative that Iraq is intricately woven into the war on terror and pulling out would be a defeat in the war on terror. Go beyond what's put in front of you KK.

What you don't get is that this is only a part of an entire global operation that is succeeding. And, events of late have shown that it is going quite well, much better than I anticipated, even in Iraq for reasons that these soldiers would have absolutely no knowledge of unless they werre privy to inner circle briefings of the President and Iraqi, Iranian and other top bureaucrats You yourself

Gee KK, how do you find the time to blog here? Shouldn't you be at the Pentagon, privy to all the latest about the global operation? Please, get back to it soon! We need you at the helm.

With all the inner circle knowledge you're privy to it's very heartening to hear your belief that the global operation is going better than you anticipated.

You need to read a few books of people who've emerged from Bushs inner circle KK. Have you seen the video of Bushs briefing on Katrina, that's a little insight. If you think he's a cerebral guy who's weighing all the complicated nuances and intricacies of the world stage you're kidding yourself. Right now he's just thinking "I'm not leaving cause I'll look like a doofus if I do" and damn the realities.

[KrustyKidd]

I choose to think it indicates troops on the ground realize certain truths, such as the ones John Murtha is speaking of.

Of course you do as you think two dimensionally. Red cars this week right?

You are assuming some higher vision because you repeat the neo-con/Bush narrative that Iraq is intricately woven into the war on terror and pulling out would be a defeat in the war on terror.

No. If I did that I would still be looking for WMDs and wondering how they tied into the War on Terror. Pulling out would not be a defeat but it certainly would be detrimental to the overal progress made. If that is in line with your'neo-conBush narrative' it is by ocincidence rather than going along with it as the information I put forth is not comming from them.

Right now he's just thinking "I'm not leaving cause I'll look like a doofus if I do" and damn the realities.

See, this is most of your problem Gerry. You take this whole affair personal. You don't like Bush therefore, this whole thing is an anti Bush mission and information gathered is only gathered if it has this one end result - 'get Bush' and discount or discredit anything else that comes along.

I never mentioned Bush here. In fact, in another thread I believe I called him a 'chimp' as I don't think he is not the brightest bulb in the box. He does however, have some good people and has been the one thing that has been steadfast throughout this affair, ignoring polls and working through an election to see this mission through to this point.

I imagine he is fairly pleased with the way things are going right now as they are certainly birghter than they were a couple of months ago. As for 'looking like a doofus' I hardly think he is worried about that. Probably that would be the only thing on your mind if the positions were reversed as that is the way you think Gerry. Rule by polls and react rather than plan. Very two dimensional.

Gee KK, how do you find the time to blog here? Shouldn't you be at the Pentagon, privy to all the latest about the global operation? Please, get back to it soon! We need you at the helm.

No you don't. Already have people who know far more than I there.

If you think he's a cerebral guy who's weighing all the complicated nuances and intricacies of the world stage you're kidding yourself.

You think he plans all this by himself while sitting on the crapper? I actually doubt that he makes any more than say a couple of decisions a day on this entire War on Terror, Iraq included. He has a staff that does all this stuff so, once given resposnsibility, the person in charge of that segment is making the decisions and giving the briefings to appraise him of how and what is going on. Therefore, it minimizes what has to be wieghed.

[gerryhatrick]

You think he plans all this by himself while sitting on the crapper? I actually doubt that he makes any more than say a couple of decisions a day on this entire War on Terror, Iraq included. He has a staff that does all this stuff

Yes, his staff decided to go into Iraq and his staff is deciding to stay there.

His staff.

It has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Bush KK. It is quite clear he has a small unchanging group of advisors who are on the record expousing PNAC goals, or even authoring them.

It is now a group-think situation in Iraq...and the group-think path is "stay the course".

But, like you they don't really understand what "the course" is. Sure, they can talk about it. Just like you. Iraq is neccessary for "peace in the region" or a "peaceful, democratic Iraq will bring security to the region". You've said the same thing, even going further to claim leaving Iraq will inflame the region.

They tell us it's part of the war on terror, like you do.

They tell us they're winning there, like you do.

You parrot the Bush narrative, and then tell me it's all your own.

The best part has been this last bit though....where you've been claiming they know what they're doing in Iraq...that the President gets briefings from the Pentagon on the region and from that he (and his staff, of course) can envision the results of their Iraq policy.

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida! Do you believe that? To anyone with the least amount of knowledge about the realities in Iraq it's absolute nonsense!

They have bungled North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. When Bush called them the "axis of evil" he put them on notice. That was applauded by neo-cons and other Bush supporters. Probably you agree it was a good thing to say, or see nothing wrong with it. Yet how stupid is it to put your adversaries on notice? Now both North Korea and Iran openly refer to it as a reason to be beligerant. North Korea cites it when they say they're building up Nuclear capability.

This is the administration you point at and express confidence that they're managing the region expertly with calculated goals.

[KrustyKidd]

Yes, his staff decided to go into Iraq and his staff is deciding to stay there.

No. He gets briefings from the heads of the departments and then takes recommendations and makes a decision. Once done, the workings of the process would generally be left up to whoever was running that particular operation.

But, like you they don't really understand what "the course" is. Sure, they can talk about it. Just like you. Iraq is neccessary for "peace in the region" or a "peaceful, democratic Iraq will bring security to the region".

Ok, what is the 'course' Gerry? And, is an Iraq in turmoil with iranians running it productive for your vision?

You've said the same thing, even going further to claim leaving Iraq will inflame the region.

I did not. Flounder your argument with your own words, don't mince mine.

They tell us it's part of the war on terror, like you do.

They tell us they're winning there, like you do.

Well then, seeing as how both of us get our info from different sources and come to the same conclusion, it makes me more secure in my argument then.

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida! Do you believe that? To anyone with the least amount of knowledge about the realities in Iraq it's absolute nonsense!

What in hell are you talking about? I don't recall any sort of speech saying the above.

They have bungled North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

North Korea - returning to six party talks Iran - direct negotiations for the first time in decades. Iraq - three elections and moving on. Yes, quite bungled. A very screwed up way to measure success you got there Gerry.