Article

2005-06-14 Iraq-Jordan

59 percent of Americans want withdrawal from Iraq: poll

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-06-14 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I am always reminded by poll articles of a scene in Dudley Moore's Crazy People where someone asks the asylum inmates of his therapy group how many of them want to be advertising executives. A few raise their hands. Then he asks, "And how many of you want to be Fire Engines!" and all of the hands go up.

Who you ask.

How you ask.

Posted by .com 2005-06-14 00:10|| 2005-06-14 00:10|| Front Page Top

#2 hmmm. em nuther chaineyd link. gudn to kno they in stil peples aroun hoo dont mined they dinners inturupted.

Posted by muck4doo 2005-06-14 00:18|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-06-14 00:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Scru that! The headline is "41% of Americans want to kick @$$!" I'll stack that 41% up against all. What...no takers? Thougt so.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-06-14 01:19|| 2005-06-14 01:19|| Front Page Top

#4 What we need are poll internals. How many Republicans and how many Democrats. My guess is that they oversampled Democrats.

As to living to regret it, I really doubt that. Muslims aren't going to repeat the mistake of 9/11. Did we live to regret the withdrawal from Vietnam? No. Who will live to regret our withdrawal? Non-Islamist Muslim opposition movements everywhere. Iraqi Shiites and Kurds will regret it. But that's really their problem, not ours. Note that there are other ways of destabilizing Muslim countries, including spending large sums of money subsidizing and arming the opposition, a la Afghanistan. I don't think a withdrawal from Iraq would be the end of the world. The side benefit is that we'd stop losing soldiers.

And if the jihadis kill 10,000 people in NYC as a response to what they consider Americans on the run? Well, it is primarily people in blue regions like NY and so on who want the war ended. As they reap, so shall they sow.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 08:28|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 08:28|| Front Page Top

#5 Coffee alert - ZF: As they reap, so shall they sow.

That should have read - As they sow, so shall they reap.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 08:31|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 08:31|| Front Page Top

#6 The only valid poll was taken last November. Was there really any question in anyone's mind who'd continue the war in Iraq?

All the rest are constructs of the media to manufacture or manipulate the public.

Posted by Ebbereck Uneregum5631 2005-06-14 08:58|| 2005-06-14 08:58|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, it is primarily people in blue regions like NY and so on who want the war ended. As they reap, so shall they sow.

Ah, the Ward Churchill of Rantburg.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 09:33|| 2005-06-14 09:33|| Front Page Top

#8 nothing wrong with wanting the war over - I just want it on our terms. Dems and Liberals want to appease and withdraw, sticking their heads back n the sand, anything to damage W.

Ward Churchill, huh LH?....weak

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-14 09:39|| 2005-06-14 09:39|| Front Page Top

#9 Even now the US Army is sending out the AIDS blankets.

Posted by W Churchill 2005-06-14 09:40|| 2005-06-14 09:40|| Front Page Top

#10 LH: Ah, the Ward Churchill of Rantburg.

Liberals have this talent for inept analogies. For the record, I don't think blue-staters are little Eichmanns. I think that if you get in the way of the fireman trying to put out the flames burning down your house, you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

I am describing a worst case scenario, not what I think should happen - the bottom line is that Democrats are targets because they are concentrated in urban areas. Why do terrorists target urban areas? Well, Willy Sutton targeted banks because that's where the money was. Terrorists target urban areas because that's where large numbers of Americans are concentrated. No matter what Michael Moore might will, terrorists will continue targeting urban areas.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 10:00|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 10:00|| Front Page Top

#11 we need to spend all the money and credit we can get until we end up like the former soviet union, totally broke.

Posted by bk 2005-06-14 10:02|| 2005-06-14 10:02|| Front Page Top

#12 wow - nice plan bk....idjit

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-14 10:04|| 2005-06-14 10:04|| Front Page Top

#13 EU has it right - All the rest are constructs of the media to manufacture or manipulate the public.

The article notes 59% "want a full or partial pullout". If I was not so paranoid about MSM spin, I'd say we are ready to start reducing troop levels, but the MSM spins that thought into "withdrawal". Reduction, O.K.; withdrawal - even Hilly says no!

Posted by Bobby 2005-06-14 10:05|| 2005-06-14 10:05|| Front Page Top

#14 I don't think a withdrawal from Iraq would be the end of the world. The side benefit is that we'd stop losing soldiers.

We are absolute fools if we do not stay until we have achieved the objectives: a multi-ethnic, fairly secular representative government with a functioning economy whose presence pressures the other surrounding states to make deep changes.

Posted by too true 2005-06-14 10:26|| 2005-06-14 10:26|| Front Page Top

#15 Ah, farkit. I say we take over Syria and sell it on eBay...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-06-14 10:36|| 2005-06-14 10:36|| Front Page Top

#16 bin Laden thought we didn't have the guts to fight. I sometimes worry that he was half right. Do we have the attention span to stick it out?
To be fair, we don't/can't announce our long range goals (suppress Wahhabism and Khomeiniism); and if all people hear about is Iraq they'll think that's all there is, and wonder why we aren't done.

Posted by James">James 2005-06-14 11:09|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 11:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Of course, what's not mentioned is this - what if Iraq's leaders ask us to stay?

Posted by Raj 2005-06-14 11:21|| 2005-06-14 11:21|| Front Page Top

#18 "you get what you deserve. No more, no less. "

Theyre not little eichmans, but they nonetheless deserve it if they get killed in a terror attack. IE chickens coming home to roost, like the man said. You got your reason they deserve it, he had his. Your reasons are different. They are both vile. People dont deserve to be killed cause of their political beliefs, even if theyre mistaken. Whether that belief is opposition to certain aspects of the war, or opposition to Wards views on social justice in the third world.

"I am describing a worst case scenario, not what I think should happen - the bottom line is that Democrats are targets because they are concentrated in urban areas"

you do realize that New York City probably has the highest percentage of pro-war Democrats and prowar liberals in the country?? For reasons that are not unrelated to my own confluence of beleifs?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 11:37|| 2005-06-14 11:37|| Front Page Top

#19 so Frank, you wouldnt care if 10,000 americans are killed in a terrorist act, as long as theyre New Yorkers?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 11:48|| 2005-06-14 11:48|| Front Page Top

#20 I think Frank only meant that if 10,000 HAD to die, they might as well be New Yorkers.

But I am (sorta)ashamed of myself for saying it!

And I live in arguably the largest target, working halfway between the Capitol and the White House.

Posted by Bobby 2005-06-14 12:28|| 2005-06-14 12:28|| Front Page Top

#21 Actually, Zhang Fei, there needs to be the WILL to even continue those means. Unless you've got cells of clandestine operators ready to destabilize multiple countries no matter how leftist this country's political leadership becomes ...

Posted by Edward Yee">Edward Yee 2005-06-14 12:38|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-06-14 12:38|| Front Page Top

#22 LH, quoting ZF: you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

Liberals aren't only good at inept analogies, they specialize in taking words out of context - i.e. lying. The full quote was: I think that if you get in the way of the fireman trying to put out the flames burning down your house, you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 13:34|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 13:34|| Front Page Top

#23 ZF - I think that if you get in the way of the fireman trying to put out the flames burning down your house, you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

Ward Churchill, on the victims at the WTC - paraphrased - I think that if you are responsible for the conditions that led to a fire, you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

We (everyone on the right and center, and most on the center left) rightfully denounced Ward C. Not over the issue of whether trading bonds actually contributed to the causes of terrorism - probably wrong, but not beyond the bounds of reasonable debate - but because he was morally blind enough to suggest that this in ANY WAY made 9/11 somehow morally fitting - "IE chickens coming home to roost" Guys who trade bonds, (and janitors, secretaries, etc) who are killed by a terrorist bombing are NOT getting what they deserve. The only guys who get what they deserve when killed by violence are those who COMMIT crimes of violence. Which is why i will glady join y'all in laughing at terr "work accidents", cheering for terr groups to fight each other, etc. But to state, or imply, that folks who opposed one WOT policy or another somehow "get what they deserve" is vile.

Perhaps youre misled by your analogy. Standing in front of the fireman. Do you honestly think most New Yorkers would go and physically obstruct US soldiers on the battlefield??? No, its opposition to certain policies that you are talking about. Its as if someone who opposed buying a new firetruck has their house burnt down. It may have been a mistake to oppose the new firetruck, but its not moral culpability that makes someone deserving of dying in a fire.

We've really got to be careful about the metaphors we use - or we'll end up no better than the director of Amnesty International.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 13:45|| 2005-06-14 13:45|| Front Page Top

#24 "Liberals aren't only good at inept analogies, they specialize in taking words out of context "

actually the blogosphere as a whole does that. Hell, this site does it quite alot. When you object, youre accused of being overly "nuanced".

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 13:46|| 2005-06-14 13:46|| Front Page Top

#25 gag

Posted by 2b 2005-06-14 13:50|| 2005-06-14 13:50|| Front Page Top

#26 LH: Ward Churchill, on the victims at the WTC - paraphrased - I think that if you are responsible for the conditions that led to a fire, you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

Ward Churchill said that Americans (little Eichmanns) were responsible for terrorists striking at the US because of Uncle Sam's policies, which he likened to that of the Nazis. My point is completely different - that if urban-dwelling liberals prevent Uncle Sam from killing America's enemies, the consequences they may suffer are only predictable - you get what you deserve. Only a liberal would confuse the two points. In Churchill's example, predatorial Muslim terrorists are out on the hunt, and America's little Eichmanns should stay out of their way by accommodating themselves to the terrorists' wishes. In my example, predatorial Muslim terrorists are on the hunt, and America's city-dwelling liberals should stay out of the way of our soldiers so they can wipe the terrorists out, failing which the latte-drinkers may fall victim to the terrorists. In Churchill's example, we must submit. In my example, we must make them submit. Liberals agree with Churchill, not me - they truly believe that Americans are the little Eichmanns described by Churchill - this is why submission comes so easily to them.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 14:26|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 14:26|| Front Page Top

#27 Do you honestly think most New Yorkers would go and physically obstruct US soldiers on the battlefield?

Oh, the people trying to obstruct the US military don't actually go out to the battlefield -- that's too dangerous -- instead they endlessly whine about minor matters (Abu Ghraib), try to impose unrealistic and utterly idiotic standards (treating terrs as lawful combatants), endlessly nitpick on imperceptable flaws in treatment that's a million times better than any other nation in the world would offer (Gitmo), and quite often outright lie (any story by Sy Hersh). It's much easier to obstruct the military from the homefront than the battlefront.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-06-14 14:33|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-06-14 14:33|| Front Page Top

#28 In Churchill's example, we must submit. In my example, we must make them submit.

and in both cases it is claimed that folks deserve to die in a terror attack because of their political beliefs.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:51|| 2005-06-14 14:51|| Front Page Top

#29 LH: and in both cases it is claimed that folks deserve to die in a terror attack because of their political beliefs.

Are you saying that there should be no consequences to our political beliefs? Wishful thinking LH. Our political belief affect us because we vote into office those who share it and demand the government represent it. That their are consequences too our political beliefs are part of what America so great, that we HAVE the choice in our lives. If a LLL who demands we pull out of Iraq, soldiers be put under the ICC, and that we apoligize/release those in Guatonamo Bay, then ends up dead in a cafe because of a former Guatonamo Bay detainee trained further in bombs by terrorists in Iraq, I'm not going too say that he didn't "Reap" the consequences of his actions. It's horribly sad that he died, yes, but he made the choices that directly contributed too his death.

Posted by Charles 2005-06-14 15:13|| 2005-06-14 15:13|| Front Page Top

#30 We gotta finish the attitude adjustment now. We need to beat them there in Iraq; stay after the rascals elsewhere, flush them out and then beat them too. If we don't stay on course, if we let ourselves get distracted, we'll have to kill multiple millions more of them, and that will only be after one of those f-ers nukes a city here. The only humanitarian thing to do is kill them now in smaller numbers, and thereby save lives.

Posted by Hank 2005-06-14 15:31|| 2005-06-14 15:31|| Front Page Top

#31 LH: and in both cases it is claimed that folks deserve to die in a terror attack because of their political beliefs.

What is it about liberals and compulsive lying? Churchill believes that Americans deserve to die because they will not submit. I believe that liberals deserve to die if they will not take the necessary precautions to have the enemy killed, i.e. if they submit. These positions are polar opposites - it's like saying that the allies and the fascists were both morally equivalent because they both struck out at civilian populations. That's what I love about liberals - lies and distortions are their stock in trade.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 15:41|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 15:41|| Front Page Top

#32 LH: These positions are polar opposites - it's like saying that the allies and the fascists were both morally equivalent because they both struck out at civilian populations.

That should have read: These positions are polar opposites - it's like LH is saying that the allies and the fascists were both morally equivalent because they both struck out at civilian populations.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-14 15:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-14 15:43|| Front Page Top

#33 "Are you saying that there should be no consequences to our political beliefs"

Not death.

The difference between the allies and the Axis is that the axis murdered civilians deliberately, while the allies killed civilians unintentionally in the course of bombing strategic targets. The terrorists, who deliberately try to maximize civilian deaths, are like Himmler, NOT like LeMay.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 15:50|| 2005-06-14 15:50|| Front Page Top

#34 I'm with Hank. It's gotta be done now to save all kinda lives and if it means fighting a short attention span like James sez, and maybe lose an electin so be it. This war is not going away because we quietdown/muffle Iraq. Iraq's not even a front, it's a battle.

/end disjoint

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-14 16:55|| 2005-06-14 16:55|| Front Page Top

#35 while the allies killed civilians unintentionally in the course of bombing strategic targets.

Um... Dresden?

Posted by Pappy 2005-06-14 20:16|| 2005-06-14 20:16|| Front Page Top

#36 The Germman Nazis and thier Jap friends raised the stakes to the point where killing civilians was deemed necessary to end the killing sooner. It wasn't like innocent civilians (like 6 mil Jews) and tens of thousands of our soldiers weren't getting killed by the Nazis and Japs. The Allied strategy worked. No one seriously questioned it on a moral basis then, but only because the stakes had been raised so high. Now 6o years later, folks seconds guess and make invalid and simplistic comparisons. Don't kid yourself, the stakes can be raised again to where hard decisions like that get considered and made again. One successful terrorist attack with WMD is all it will take, and strong measures would once again be necessary to prevent mass killing of innocent Americans, Europeans, whoever, or to preserve the free world.

Posted by Hank 2005-06-14 21:35|| 2005-06-14 21:35|| Front Page Top

23:51 Captain America
23:19 eLarson
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:13 3dc
23:05 2b
23:00 3dc
22:55 mom
22:01 ed
22:00 an dalusian dog
21:41 badanov
21:35 Hank
21:26 Bobby
21:07 Spot
21:03 Atomic Conspiracy
20:59 mojo
20:51 Shairong Sninter4063
20:42 Bomb-a-rama
20:42 Zhang Fei
20:34 Bomb-a-rama
20:28 Frank G
20:26 OldSpook
20:25 .com
20:19 Tom
20:18 Apache