digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Exit Iraq? Republicans Say "Yes!"

thenation.com — ANSWER: Yes 52% No 39% Undecided 9%

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -31/+16Holy Crap! I just dugg a Nation article!
    • KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Isn't asking if anyone here was polled also, in fact, a poll? So your argument's logic is not consistent, as it predicts itself invalid...(to mercedrocks below, no idea how this got up here)
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10wtf happened in here? an hour ago there were 16 replies...now there are 79? Neo-Con brigade?
    • AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6I'm Republican, and I say no.
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Did I forget my /sarcasm tag or something?

      Jeez, look at my profile...it's called a sense of humor, guys.
    • mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16antbing

      It doesn't matter what you think, this isn't a democracy.
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23macmaniac,

      I feel for you...so misled. We 'NEED' to be there? No, we don't. Iraq is not OUR war. It is a civil war between Iraqis.

      Let them fix their own mess and let's get our troops back home. Then, maybe we can fix things like New Orleans.
    • dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@macmaniac23

      Good idea! Let's stay in the middle of a civil war! Or not...

      It's time people like you realized that our troops there is not stopping the violence. It only makes it worse. Everyone except the blind agree. When we leave, it will take the fuel off the fire. Sure- we could keep some aircraft there to help with support, but our ground troops being there are just pissing people off. Did you not see the protest?

      But go ahead and believe everything Bush says. He is just always right, especially when it comes to Iraq!
    • haggie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Muslims killing Muslims is just fine in my book. Keep them busy with a jihad against themselves, so they don't have a time for a jihad against me...

      There is only one Republican that wants to remain in Iraq. Unfortunately, he's the Commander in Chief and has a daddy complex.
    • llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Too bad even with a majority (52%) of Republicans saying Yes it is still short of the 2/3's (67%) majority that would be required to override the Presidential Veto of any bill passed by Congress.
    • mrn111, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@llbbl,

      You don't need a 2/3 majority of Republicans to overturn a veto, you need a 2/3 majority of each house of congress, Dems included.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The party identification numbers for America are roughly 30% for Replublicans and Democrats, and 40% for unidentified or independent.

      Assuming that 95% of Demcrats and 52% of Republicans would vote to leave, that would leave ROUGHLY 50% of the "other" parties to vote to leave - which is less than this poll shows - to get your 67%.

      This assumes that congress aligns perfectly with the percentages.

      That being said, the political landscape is much more complex than a few polls. I think even a lot of Democrats wouldn't think of trying to override a veto about this yet. A lot would, but not enough.

      The use of polling numbers in political debate is tenuous at best.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"It's time people like you realized that our troops there is not stopping the violence. It only makes it worse."

      You are seriously deranged if you think that's true. Do you really believe people in Iraq will become peaceful if the US leaves?
    • ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3We need to stay in Iraq. We need to stick out out. We are making progress. I hear that already there are parts of Iraq that are perfectly safe to walk through with only a small army for protection. If that's not progress, I don't know what is.
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ldkronos

      Sure... McCain walked thru Baghdad...with 100 Soldiers, 12 High Armoured vehicles, 2 Apaches and 2 Black Hawks.

      If that's "safe" I'd hate to see a clusterf**k
    • ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@therealduckie

      Exactly my point.
  • Blooooo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+11Wouldn't at 52% it be more like "Republicans Say 'Yes,'?"

    An exclamation point would be more accurate at a number around 70-80%.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -13/+72More like "Republicans very, very reluctantly say yes."

      And it only took four years and everybody screaming the obvious at them.
    • MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -25/+9Didnt know that the war was a partisan issue :(

      Plus I've never read a poll that was worth paper it was written on.

      Was anybody here polled? I think not. So lets see, ask like 3,000 people a question and extrapolate it to the rest of the country.
    • SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Hey, Bush called it a man-date when he was reselected with a 51% margin. 52% is pretty good!
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Merced:

      >Didnt know that the war was a partisan issue :(

      You didn't? The Democrats supported it when the changed NIE was given to them. Then when the real one was disclosed revealing that the administration had fudged a LOT of facts to get what it wanted, they generally stopped supporting it. Darn unpatriotic Democrats.

      >Was anybody here polled? I think not. So lets see, ask like 3,000 people a question and extrapolate it to the rest of the country.

      Yeah, that's exactly what polls do. It's called "statistics."
    • MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bigdavediode
      I was being sarcastic. Each party hates a war if it's waged by the opposing party. Thats why they're there -- to OPPOSE, to offer a different point of view.

      As for statistical analysis, if you ever studied it, it's only as good as who and what's being asked. I could make a poll to make any conclusion of your choosing.

      It seems so stupid to use them because they're worthless really. It can never fully account for the population as a whole (too many variables to factor in), and it's never useful to either side of an argument UNLESS IT'S CONDUCTED by surveying the ENTIRE POPULATION or as many as humanly possible(ex = US census).

      Don't worry BTW, we'll be out of there by the end of next year whether the govt of Iraq likes it or not, and we can all watch the bloodbath as they get to truly begin to kill one another. Right know we're just holding back the bloodshed, kinda dumb really I guess.

      Bush dumb for going in? YES. Lied? Who the F knows. ***** over there messed up? Yes. But, if we leave will more people die in the ensuing civil war than if we had stayed? Yes. But, I guess none of us will have to worry about that. As long as "our" boys come home (how many of you know somebody in uniform or have served as I have?) that's all that matters.

      By saying leave now before the Iraqi govt has a chance to stabilize its govt, you're really sentencing the entire country to one fat civil war. Who cares right? Bring the troops home and let the Iraqis kill one another more efficiently.

      If we're lucky maybe it'll be like in Vietnam where just a few years after we left, more Indochinese citizens were killed in the ensuing quagmire than had died on both sides in the whole Vietnam war. Who says the LEFT doesn't care?
  • caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28We will be out of Iraq the day after we are out of Iran........
    • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7too bad we're likely not to exist after all that...
    • abid786, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7Talking about getting out of Iran? Still have to get INTO Iran :|
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4Exactly.
    • Noah0504, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17No, we will be out of Iraq so we can move into Iran...
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Actually a buddy of mine got word from his family IN Iran that we're already there doing covert ops and the like. He said we've been messing around over there for months already, but haven't been caught or formally declared war.

      I actually read an article about a confrontation between some marines and Iranian Guard. The marines were in Iranian territory for reasons unknown and found themselves surrounded. The iranians began firing at the humvee convoy with rpgs and the like, and a few guys were killed but most escaped unharmed. Thing was there was no mention as to why the US had put the marines in Iran to begin with.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6suckmydigg: Sources?

      This would be the same heresay as me claiming that Iranian military has been operating in FL for a long time.
    • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@saigumi,

      Seymour Hersh: U.S. Conducting Covert Operations in Iran For Possible Military Strike

      ----
      According to Hersh's article, the president has authorized the Pentagon to sent secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. Bush reportedly used the Pentagon for the missions instead of the CIA to avoid having to report to Congress.
      ----
      http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/18/1447252


      US boosts secret missions in Iran

      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21293243-601,00.html


      Retired Colonel: ‘We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now. The Evidence Is Overwhelming.’
      ------
      Just now on CNN, Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) said, “We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming.”
      ---------
      http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/

      The Coming Wars
      ----
      The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
      ----
      http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact

      Tehran insider tells of US black ops
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html

      Covert Operations in Iran
      http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Feb-27.html

      US rebuts 'Iran covert op' claim
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4182365.stm
  • abdim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Computer says no...
  • jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -14/+50First, these 312 traitors will be expelled from the Republican Party. Second, they will be deported to Iraq. Third, they will detained as enemy combatants and interned at Camp X-ray. Finally, the intelligence their interrogations will provide will be the evidence we need to get the UN behind our upcoming invasion of Iran.
    • Aeaus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Hear hear for the proper political actions of a free nation.
    • Whosawhatsis, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6I would digg you up, but sadly I can't be sure that you're not a real neocon who sincerely believes that that's what should be done. When the real thing is so diametrically opposed to anything that makes sense, it's hard to tell truth from satire.
    • Cerialthriller, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11whats so bad about being deported to iraq? I mean, mccain says its so safe over there. That should be a neocon vacation.
    • jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@whosawhatsis
      I dugg you down because you hate America.
    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The Republicans are saying "Yes" as long as they can blame it on the Democrats. Here's how they'll say it:

      "Yes, we have to pull out of Iraq because the Democrats have forced our hand and we no longer have any other choice."

      That's how it's done in politics, take no responsibility, blame the other side and do the opposite of what you promised to do.
    • dikiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Hate to sound like I'm giving lessons, but you guys have to face it: France was right!

      Even the most hardcore neocons start to admit, check:
      Ted Reinstein @ http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/11349559/detail.html "they were right. Pure and simple."
      Jonah Goldberg @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/jonah-goldberg-agrees-t_b_40092.html "The French Were Right"
  • starguy, on 10/12/2007, -29/+15talk about being whores and panderers to the now loud and outraged public opinion. it was those son of a bitches that got the us into that quagmire.

    i got a better idea. vote every single one of them out. on both sides. fat pork bellied politicians. elect a bunch of fresh 20 somethings. no more 50 year old farts and codgers.

    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4yeah No More 50 yr Old Farts! absolutely, these people shouldn't be making decisions that are going to affect us and our kids by the time they're long gone. Most of them take decisions based on an antiquated point view, fearing all that they don't understand, preventing advancements in our society, and who knows how many of them are crack pots wishing for the Armageddon before they croked
    • woodyl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25If the disengaged 20-somethings had gotten off their butts to vote in the last election, we wouldn't be blessed with the White House crowd we have now. As John Mayer says in his somewhat whiny apologia, they're still "waiting for the world to change" rather than actually doing something about it. I'm not inclined to hand over the decision making in the country to the W ("Whatever") Generation quite yet!
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Yeah just hang on to the "you're all going down with us" generation. Good thinking.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Woody, I said nothing of the sort. Although, I do agree somewhat.
    • ZWarren69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Understandably, we need people that have seen and been through a lot of life situations. But I fail to see how marriage became a qualification for a public office....

      O wait, I guess all I know about are bongs and Intro to Comp classes....

  • Plinkotic, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7As a young, opinionated, ignorant 20 something, I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17It's like having the cast of Beverly Hillbillies in Washington, but with too much authority.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4No, the Clinton's aren't in the WH again, yet.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, the Beverly Hillbillies were from Arkansas...didn't you know that?
  • chase001, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Bush has long imagined a mandate (he already has man dates with Saudi Princes). Now he has a real mandate from the American and Iraqi people and he ignores it.
  • Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Gotta remember that most true republicans are very fiscally conservative. Seeing all these billions fly out the door with no results makes them cringe.
    • omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6And you just hit the nail on the head for why I think we should leave Iraq. If it were free, or somehow otherwise paid for (or bringing results), I'd still be supporting it.
    • avolant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6thats because you're smart and you understand the value and meaning (and responsibilities) of a sovereign nation
    • moses48, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yep, and what you refer to as "true" republicans don't exist anymore. Now it's just one big socialism feast among republicans and democrats alike.
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I hope your definition of "free" includes "no loss of life" and not just "no money".
  • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Eventually? Hell Yes.

    Right this minute or with a public time table? HELL NO!
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4if ( eventually == years )
      untiredStates--
  • thesoze, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5yep a bunch of flip floppers - must be an election season - spineless bastards!
  • BrokenClock, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4It's sad that people believe poles such as this to be absolute truth.
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Polls too
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Yeah you can't trust a people that make submarines with screen doors.
  • 3DPeruna, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6You trust something from the "Nation". I think not.... The "poll" may be correct, but "The Nation." There's "fair and balanced for you." Not nearly enough information about the poll. The lead questions, the specifics of who's voting (For instance, if I know a pollster is looking for a particular point of view, I'll pretend to be the opposite of what I am and give them the opposite answer, just to mess with 'em).

    This really ain't a story...it's more propaganda (from the left side. The right side has its own propaganda, too... Just realize what it is and move on).
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5"This really ain't a story...it's more propaganda (from the left side"

      You're propaganda.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I meant to say "you are" propoganda
    • fwedwic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1its ppl like u who take credibility out of "statistics." dude it could be bias.. but who are u trying to kid ;P
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Cut and run? No....
    Slice and stroll!
  • RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Wouldn't it be nice if we could just "Leave Iraq"? We could put the Unicorns and Elves and Gnomes in charge in
    kind of a simplified tri-partisan executive-judicial-legislative model and the easter bunny could be foreign minister.

    It would work I tell you. ( Well, there would be a small amount of Synthetic Wool Stuffing everywhere for a while. )
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Whether we leave now or "eventually" that place will be nowhere near as peaceful as the way Saddam had it. (Yes thats right I called it peaceful under Saddam's rule)
    • avolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4i cannot for the life of me understand why anyone is concerned whether iraq has a functioning government or not when we leave. what portion of the middle east does? what about africa? how is our government doing? pretty top notch, wouldnt you say? not like we've spent billions of dollars on something that doesnt effect us in the least. not like we havent wasted thousands of lives. theirs, one might argue, would have been taken care of by saddam, but killing our troops has just been, yknow, kind of a bonus. not even like this would be the first country that we would leave in total ruin, financially, structurally, or governmentally, so i cant even see that being an argument. usually we set out for those ends, but it happens on accident occasionally too. call it the helpful heavy hand of first world aid.

      and really, what better way to encourage a populace-run democracy by not giving the people a chance to set one up (and striving as hard as possible to set a horrific example). i will concede that they probably wont, but they should at least be given an opportunity. unless we are just trying to play the role of the british for them so they, too, can have an independence day.

      we never should have gone in in the first place. if you want to help them, leave them alone and let them have control of their own resource so they can start rebuilding something. or let them all kill themselves in a horribly bloody civil war. something tells me, however, they would work it out as well with us and our fantastic influence (and massive economic drain) as without us. maybe then we would have some time to think about our own government and how far we've let it go...
    • fwedwic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1avolant- exactly dude
    • moses48, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@avolant
      I posted my reply below.
  • wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I've protested this war from the beginning, in the streets, but there's this nagging part of me that keeps asking: If there was a genocidal civil war going on, wouldn't we intervene to save lives? Take, for instance, Rwanda. Our inaction there has been the cause of plenty of retrospective guilt and hand-wringing. So...say we leave Iraq now and an all-out civil war breaks out. Sunnis murdering every Shiite they can get their hands on, and vice versa. Wouldn't that put us in the awkward position of saying: We're just going to let them tear each other to pieces and hope it all works out. Wouldn't that be the same as not acting on Rwanda? or Darfur? or Somalia? or Bosnia?

    Then again, there are lots of civil wars that we don't stick our noses into, Cambodia, Sri Lanka...
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Then again, there are lots of civil wars that we don't stick our noses into, Cambodia, Sri Lanka... "

      Cambodia? We bombed them into a civil war. (Not to discount everything else you said)
    • Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5So you agree we should not have started this war, but now that we have it could be devistating if we left now.
    • TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a moral question that still confounds our nation: Is it our business or "right" to poke our noses into another nation's internal affairs? If we're in Iraq because it's the right thing to do, to prevent a civil war, then why aren't we in Darfur as well?
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"So you agree we should not have started this war, but now that we have it could be devistating if we left now."

      I don't. We must quit thinking of everyone as beneath us. They can fix it...we can't. We should leave NOW. We should give them money to rebuild, but let them figure out how to use it. Every day we are there, resentment will build. An occupying army will never be welcome there regardless if they are "fixing" it.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"This is a moral question that still confounds our nation: Is it our business or "right" to poke our noses into another nation's internal affairs? If we're in Iraq because it's the right thing to do, to prevent a civil war, then why aren't we in Darfur as well?"

      There are no morals at the top, just money.
    • wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No ibox, I wouldn't say that. I think we're doing more harm than good. I just think the fallout after we leave is going to be really hard to stomach.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"They can fix it...we can't. We should leave NOW. We should give them money to rebuild, but let them figure out how to use it."

      They are launching mortar rounds into the primary schools their neighbors children attend.
      They are currently trying to kill each other.
      They apparently want nothing to do with eachother almost as much as they want nothing to do with us.
      They will blame us till the end of time if we leave them flat.

      Sure, they can fix it.
    • wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wait...that is what you said. I should shut up now....
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We aren't in Darfur because the UN humanitarian rights group is too busy condeming Isreal instead of fixing current problems facing the world. Remember, Sudan is on that council. Darfur -> Sudan

      Tough luck, eh? Your own damn gov't hates Jews so much that it concentrates on them and ignores you dieing of starvation while being beaten and mutilated.
    • avolant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3it is the right of a sovereign nation to rip itself apart. if a foreign nation intervenes it is for their own self-interest. darfur, rwanda, these things are unfortunate. many times caused by foreign influence. foreign influence is not the solution. localized solidarity, on the other hand, is. unfortunately, it is mostly impossible to step into these things without taking sides, so barring the chance one of the sides has it out for said foreign nation, it is not sensible from any standpoint to step in. except perhaps the value of human life, something civil war goes a long way to refute. setting a proper example and refusing to reward violent behavior is important. engaging in violent behavior to curb violent behavior, i believe, is basically nonsense.
    • wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Avolant:
      What about WWII?
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"If we're in Iraq because it's the right thing to do, to prevent a civil war, then why aren't we in Darfur as well?"

      I'll tell you why, because Darfur doesn't have any resources worth our time... Not to sound to conspiracy-theororist like, but the Bush's have been in and part of Big Oil for some time and I truly think that Oil has everything to do with why we are meddling in the Middle East. I know Dubya hasn't been the only person/Administration interested in the Middle East. We have provided weapons and money to groups and organizations (now considered terrorists) for over a half of a century and we wonder why the world is starting to hate us. If I'm not mistaken the we put Saddam INTO power in the first place and we built a nuclear reactor in Iran for them. They have this knowledge b/c of us, we have made our bed and now we have to lay in it. I'm not one who follows the "terrorists are after us" non-sense, in-fact I'm tired of seeing this ***** on TV, one of my favorite shows, NCIS. I guess b/c most people are afraid of "terrorists". Any time I hear that word I think of the Flu. More people die in a given year from the Flu than do from terrorist attacks. We don't see people living in bubbles and wearing masks when they leave their homes. I'm tired of this ***** fearmongering. Most sheeple seariously don't give a ***** and it pisses me way the F*** off. /rant

      Not to mention, had this "war" not happened we could have built thousands of modern schools (Think of the children comment), or at least invested it in America, with the half-trillion dollars we've given to the Military Industrial Complex, and some of them are taking our tax money w/them to Dubai. ***** pricks. ***** multi-national corporations don't give a ***** about the average American. They want more revenue and they don't give a damn who it affects. Take Dell for instance, they are saving a hell of a lot of money paying people pennies on the dollar to answer scripted tech-support calls overseas. We need people in the ***** government (All 3 branches) who have no connections to special corporate interests and that is the only way we can get to where we were. ***** pass some legislation that states no OUTSIDE funding. Every election, provide exact same amount of money to x number of candidates and pat them on the back and say good luck. I'm ***** exhausted worrying about the corruption and ***** that goes on. Sure my life is fine, but I'm not worried about mine, I'm worried about my kids'.

      I work too many hours to get involved w/politics in my community, just like every other working American, I will however, do what I can to ensure a transparent government. Maybe one day...

      Back on topic, we didn't get to where we were today by letting someone else fight our battles. If they are not civilized enough to run a country, the civil war way of life is their decision.

      American Revolution 2.0
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jaycliche
      "We should give them money to rebuild, but let them figure out how to use it."

      Hahaha... I know how that'll go. Who will you give that money to? Whoever you give it to, it will just be to fund their side of the civil war.
    • bagofbeef, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ unstablemind:

      I would digg your comment all day, if I could. Well written, well said.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@unstablemind
      There is only one problem with your argument that our interactions in the Middle East are all about Big Oil: Israel.

      Israel is the predominate reason we are alienated from the majority of Arab nations - why would we so ardently stand by them if we're all about Big Oil? Israel doesn't have much if any oil at all!

      If it was truly about Big Oil, we'd drop our support of Israel and get in bed with Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al.

      So, what are the other reasons?
    • fwedwic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2weed..whatever.- how about we join the fight and then we too can be part of the pointless destruction and killings- as well as pissing off most of the world- and im not so certain we'll be so "safe" at home now or even after all this bs. my ass they're going to be able to sustain an actual stable government that isnt just total *****. imperialism...?? y dont we just make it a state already,... gimmi a break
  • Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Who wouldn't be for our withdrawl in 6 months... as long as we get the job done?
    • cortlandjim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"..as long as we get the job done?"

      --Can you really tell us what the "job" is?
      I thought the whole Idea was to get rid of regime and put a puppet regime in its place?

      Obviously mr. president and his advisors didn't pay attention in history class. you cant force these people to do things they don't want to do and we are witnessing it first hand. The radicals wont go away even if we leave or stay, as long as one group of people(radicals) want to take power from others, and are willing to do anything to get it, we can't out wait them and "finish this job".

      we need to realize we met our goals of regime change and let the country stand on its own for awhile. Forget the oil georgie you cant have it as long as people are willing keep you from it. how about we let the market bear its own fruit, eventually they will decide whats right for themselves and will be willing to sell their resources.
      this war was not about terror, it is about arrogance and greed!, a dick waving contest and as far as I can tell georgie is trying to compensate for some short-coming!
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I thought the whole Idea was to get rid of regime and put a puppet regime in its place? "

      Your forgetting, that already happened w/Saddam. One puppet regime replaced w/another b/c we could no longer control them.
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I can tell you what the "job" is: building permanent military bases. I hear 14 of them. lakeshorebaby is correct, there is no "we" here. Dems & Repubs are working for the same boss. The US government has been overtaken by a criminal cabal and there are no legitimate national elections in this country. This does not mean that all people in the government are bad, just that the government is not controlled by the public. We are in a dictatorship. Every day the police state tightens its grip. Ever wonder what all these new prisons are for?
      You.
    • Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To thwart Evildoers DUH!
    • Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>>>
  • 1jaxstate1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Bush says not yet, and until he changes his mind, we'll be in Iraq. Sad but true.
  • vroom101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Iraqi desert flare-o-rama: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20051111.htm , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vyXkD8TVUQ
  • tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think Bush has lost the heartland of this country.
    From Jan. 31, 2007, we learned Georgie doesn't do it for Peoria anymore.
    "In Peoria this week, many patrons found their pancakes more interesting...A woman, eyeing Bush and his entourage, sighed heavily and went back to her paper. She was reading the obituaries. 'Sorry to interrupt your breakfast,' a White House aide told her. 'No problem,' she huffed, in a not-so-friendly way. 'Life goes on, I guess.'"
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16908975/site/newsweek/
  • bbass74, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm Republican and I'm all for a strategy to get out, but I don't believe giving a time table is in the best interest of both our troops or Iraq or the US. It's basically giving terrorists and radicals a timetable and I don't think thats wise. The military can have their own timetable and not release that info to the public, that's fine with me. Thanks to our wonderful American media who does not have the best interest of our country in mind when they report news. All they care about is being first, giving no regards as to the content they are spewing out of their mouths.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree - if we're going to give them a timetable, we might as well go ahead and get the hell out completely. The only benefit to staying on a timetable would possibly be to allow the Iraqis to grab their belongings and flee before we leave.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Man, ***** that, you act like we're leaving them helpless. They have their own military and police force now. Let them deal with their own country. If we're gonna take care of that place, at least make it a territory or a state. We need to stop meddling and telling other cultures to live our way of life. If their people are unhappy, they will rebel.
  • biuku, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This whole thing is framed improperly. It's not about left vs right or even about preventing a U.S. invasion force from coming into more harm ... it's about one thing only: civilians. Bush entered Iraq illegally and based on lies, and then did about 10 things to screw it up. Just the number of people who are under 5 and who are dead or don't have any parents or arms would alone be many multiples of 9/11's carnage.

    Whatever secures the innocents is the right path. Once that's done, let's humiliate or try Bush.
  • natey14, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Why can't people understand the fact that you just can't pull out after going in. Yup, it's like having sex. Once you're in the country you gotta finish the job, right? If we pulled out of Iraq they would be left to defend themselves and do everything on their own without our troop support. The terrorists will see it as cowardice and keep pushing. If we pull out of Iraq now, every one of those soldiers that have died over there will be a pointless death. Don't be stupid.
    • McHoffa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1that's right, if you pull out too soon you make a big mess everywhere...
    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6and if you don't pull out you have to deal with the consequences for decades to come
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1by the time you wake up it will be too late
  • Nexus6, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Too bad. You guys started the war which means you have to stay until it's fully over so you can't run off leaving a civil war in your wake which will kill millions and destabilize the region.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Where are you that you aren't in the "you guys" declaration?
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If it is never over. Does that mean we never leave?
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1...
  • inurb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Just blame the people that voted for Bush.....twice.
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Blaming each other is part of the problem.

      I voted against Bush both times, but that's no reason to rub your neighbors face in it...

      As we've seen time and time again - smugness doesn't work, and we don't want a fractured country for years to come...

  • IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Makes you wonder how we would react if Bush turned around and pulled the troops from Iraq himself...
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You'd bash him for abandoning the Iraqis to a civil war that will tear their country and our own in two.

      Actually, that would almost be a good thing North Iraq and South Iraq.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2LOL, just like every other nation we...er...helped. North/South Korea & North/South Vietnam.....WOW!
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@unstablemind
      Yeah, but those countries were divided into North/South before we got involved...

      I didn't see or detect /sarchasm tags, so forgive me if you were being it... :)
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1bush did not put the goddamned troops in and he can't pull them out. HE'S A PUPPET IDIOTS!
      and so will the next one be. they have to be beholden to the machine in order to get into the ***** game. bush can't even go to the bathroom w/o permission you ***** morons.
  • lotion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Personally, I'm sick of all of the stereotyping that goes on between the two parties. The fact of the matter is that we're involved in a foreign country (a move that I am positive many of the folks who are now against our involvement once agree with or at least didn't oppose). Our involvement was not well thought out and was (and I say this without trivializing the issue) a mistake. Everyone has agreed to that including Bush and his administration, the difference is some people have lost (never had?) faith in the possible outcome, others have not (wishful thinking?).

    Personally, I feel that submitting a "war-deadline" is a unreasonable (at least, the way that it is currently being proposed). Many of the (freely elected) people developing the framework for the future of Iraq, while uneasy about us being there in the first place, are just as uneasy about us leaving at this time. I feel like submitting a withdrawal deadline would be saying, "ok, we screwed up ... Good luck."
    I feel the best solution would be to raise the voices of the people of Iraq and PUBLICLY ask their leaders (both appointed and of the people) what it is they want us to do, ending all of the speculation, silencing both sides of this stupid political circus. There is much too much focus on the reputations of republicans / democrats, and not enough focus on what is best for Iraq and who should rightfully be making that determination (the Iraqis, perhaps?).
    • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Already been done.
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
      http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/27/iraq.poll/
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Those polls are from 3 and 1 year(s) ago respectively. Given the current climate, would you expect those numbers have changed? Sectarian violence has increased markedly in the past year.
    • lotion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I figured someone would link to an article or two and here is what I have to say (bound to happen from one side or the other, anyway) so first, here's me playing devil's advocat:
      Those two articles are inconsistent with one another. The first states 58% favor an immediate pull out, the second states 37% favor a pull out within 6 months (no info on immediate pull out). The first article also states that 60% believe that US soldiers are looting while searching houses while less than 7% (of the total percentage polled, not of the 60%) have experienced US soldier involvement first-hand. It also contains this direct quote from one of the individuals polled which suggests a difference between wanting the US to cease involvement and knowing if it's the right thing to do: "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again." There is also the fact that the area is divided amongst three seperate groups of people: Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. These articles say nothing about which groups have said what.

      Having said that, there are enough articles favoring both sides of the argument that we could link each other into an oblivion which is why I said we should publicly ask all of the Iraqi leaders (as in state of the union-style address ... broadcast nationwide). Proving my point, I just heard on NPR the other day the US-Iraqi ambassador saying that many Iraqis were hopefully of the troop "surge" and, while many Iraqi people have grown impatient, they are still not well enough prepared and stabilized to avoid full-blown civil war.

      I'm not saying that I believe one way or the other ... Frankly, I have a difficult time trusting any poll that is released claiming the general opinion of "most" Iraqis and until I can see and hear all aspects of Iraqi leadership say one way or the other, I think we're going to go absolutely no where with this thing.

      Regardless, I think both sides are childish and immature. One side is too focused on covering their own ass and the other is too focus on saying, "I told you so." If the situation over there was the opposite and things were going extremely well, I am certain that the roles would be reversed between democrats and republicans and we'd be having the exact same arguments.
  • cortlandjim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It all comes crumbling down....

    I am glad to be here and now to witness the slow crumbling death that is the Republican Party. We are at a tipping point in political history, Reagan style Republicans and their base of neo-conservative, idealogical idiots are on the decline. You can witness it with a major shift in middle.

    Proof - last election.
    At some point someone will step up and realize that extreme right-minded leaders are not doing what is in their(middle) best interest. After all the middle - 50-60% is what decides the elections the people that can vote either way based on what feels right instead voting how they are told. and the Middle is Restless.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're making a "victory speech" based on a jacked-up poll? You are deluded. Learn something about statistics before you try to use them to "prove" ANYTHING.

      600 is too small a sample.

      The phrase "likely republicans" means they don't know if they asked republicans or not. It makes the whole title false and does not support the conclusion of the article.

      If you don't get a sample from each state, say about 800 per state, you don't get a good cross-section and the data is useless. Unless you're just trying to preach to the choir.

      oops
  • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would like to see the rest of the survey.
  • southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4article said: the survey queried 600 likely Republican caucus goers

    that word likely scares me. As for the poll, the sample that was drawn is too small to make a judgment on. There are 48,000,000+ republicans in the country, so that would make the sample .0000125 of the total repub. population, and according to the sample size rules used in statistics, this would be considered a bogus poll. 600 does not truly represents the will of 48000000.
    I could care less who votes for who, just pointing out a flaw in the poll.

    Sick of politics like me?
    Vote Ronald McDonald 2008!
    • IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ronald McDonald? We already have a clown in office, look how that's going.
    • southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Well, Bush can not give me hamburgers for 49 cents on Wednesday though, Ronald can!

      props on your comment though!
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@southwestnut
      It depends on how the 600 people were chosen. Restricting them to one state doesn't tell much either. If you really want a good statistic, they have to be randomly chosen from the entire population, otherwise your sample could be easily skewed.
    • southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@tk

      good point, nothing like a double-blind randomized sample! This poll looked like a stratified simple sample, known for not showing all the data
  • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Having followed the antics of the Bush administration and the other Republicans in congress it's obvious that when Republicans say yes, they really mean no.
  • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The Democrats have no intention of pulling out of Iraq, or dismantling the corrupt Federal Reserve. Both parties are bought and paid for by the Military-Industrial Complex.
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Thats an opinion. Replace the work "Democrats" with "Republicans" and you got yourself a verifiable fact.
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Surprise surprise, an election must be coming. Congress isn't interested in doing this right, they're playing a childish game of "if you can we can" bush actually caved a little bit and said, "okay, lets talk this over" and the PUBLIC response from the speaker, from one of the chief lawmakers of this country was "he's had his way and everything he wanted was rubber stamped, well now it's different." basically, in the context of the event he said well bush did whatever he wanted without our opinion so now we're going to o whatever we want without his poopyhead opinion.

    This is pure political, child-like *****, none of them give a damn about Iraq or this country they are just doing whatever they can to make sunshine spring from their asses in the elections. It is absolutely disgusting.

    To the democrats who voted right alongside of the republicans and hailed Bush before the war FINISH WHAT YOU STARTED.
    • notcarsondaly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Finish what exactly? What are the current strategic objectives for the 100,000+ plus personnel in the region? I do not care what they are, I just want a little more honesty. NOT total honesty. I understand there are some things that the average citizen should not know. However, this operation, occupation, war, or whatever it has morphed into over the years, has been very expensive. What am I, the U.S. citizen getting in return. Security? I do not feel anymore secure. I think the U.S. has more enemies willing to carry out attacks against U.S. targets because our resources are not allocated wisely. Oil? Seems to me, oil prices are still rising and I am still paying close to $3 per gallon of gasoline. Makes me wonder what happened to the good old days when a conquering army would return the spoils of their victory to their country. Building a stable democracy? The U.S. is 230 years old. The processes and policies we have in place have had a long time to grow and evolve to provide a stable and peaceful system of government. We are expecting the Iraqi people, with the guidance of the U.S., to form a similar system in under 5 years? Ridiculous. Reminds me of the Genesis project in Wrath of Khan.

      [Discussing the effects of the Genesis torpedo]
      McCoy: Dear Lord. You think we're intelligent enough to... suppose... what if this thing were used where life already exists?
      Spock: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.
      McCoy: "Its new matrix"? Do you have any idea what you're saying?
      Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.
      McCoy: Not anymore; now we can do both at the same time! According to myth, the Earth was created in 6 days. Now, watch out. Here comes Genesis. We'll do it for you in 6 minutes!
  • galaxym100, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The population polled is too small and too region specific for any scientific validity. The use of such poll numbers is amateurish propaganda at best. But then again an uneducated populace could be seduced by such invalid arguements. Show me the data.
  • Tigerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I feel for you...so misled. We 'NEED' to be there? No, we don't. Iraq is not OUR war. It is a civil war between Iraqis. Let them fix their own mess and let's get our troops back home. Then, maybe we can fix things like New Orleans."

    Misled? That's a funny way to turn around things. It seems to me most of the Middle East problems were caused by Western countries. Check your history books and start reading at the chapter about WW I. And be surprised.

    I'm not just criticizing the US here, people, most European countries are to blame too. GB, France just to name a few. So don't go telling these people have their own problems. 'We' created them.
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He was misled into thinking this is our war(i.e. against terrorists) and that Muslims are 'boogie men' coming to get us in our sleep.

      We have ethical reasons for being there, i agree. But militarily-- we are only making matters worse.

      It would be best if we pulled out our defensive forces, provided mediators and observers, and avoided building permanent bases.
  • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Funny thing about surveys and statistics -- That could be a poll of the 800 Republicans in SF or Seattle. If you don't know the COMPLETE demographics and the actual question's phrasing, the survey is useless for anything other than propaganda and disinformation.

    People who hear that, and don't understand what you need to know in order to evaluate the data, will take it as being a cross-sample of EVERYONE, when it's not. It's not. FTFA:

    "the survey queried 600 likely Republican caucus goers"

    600 LIKELY Republican... Maybe, might have been... really specific data gathering there, in order to support that title!

    First, these are not the politicians everyone is venting, it's the Republican Caucus, state reperesentatives.

    Second, 600 is not enough data to get an accurate random sampling.

    Third, which state's caucus-goers were asked? Were they all "cherry-picked" from CA, WA, OR, and NY?

    Polls like this one only prove that the organization presenting it has an agenda.

    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Tell you what, since you obviously think you know how to do it better...

      Do something about it.

      Otherwise, next time Fox Noise or WSJ use a poll which you agree with, I am allowed to debunk it on the same ridiculous and asinine merits.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I don't ever use polls or stats in a debate. So, you can do what you like, little man.

  • vampiregabe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Republican.

    I say no.

    ¡Viva La Reagan Revolución!

    ¡Viva La Bush Revolución!
    • Tigerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not a fan of Reagan (did you forget what happened in Nicaragua) - and I'm not conservative either, but theoretically speaking, Bush isn't even half the conservative Reagan was:

      http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/29/brooks/index.html?source=rss
    • vampiregabe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Tigerr

      What successfully got rid of a dictator? Do you remember Granada? How about the fall of Soviet Russia?

      Oh, and Salon, oh yeah, that's objective.

      No Bush and Reagan are not in the same category. But when you figure JFK is closer to Bush than Pelosi, well, then the Dems have problems.
    • Tigerr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vampiregabe

      That's exactly what I mean - How do you get rid of a malicious political leader, and why? Reagan got as one of the first (could be just first, have to check again) US Presidents an official UN conviction for terrorism for his actions in Nicaragua. See what happens in Iraq... Illegally invading and occupying a country? Looks to me that's not the way to deal with dictators.

      And as for Salon. Which media are 'objective'? You might not agree with what you read, but the point of view might still be interesting and enriching.

      Check out Glenn Greenwalds work on US media on Salon, you might like it - really.
  • SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Everyone needs to digg (quick, the neoBushies are trying to bury this important article)

    http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/VIDEO_OUTFOXED_Rupert_Murdoch_s_War_on_Journalism

    this article up to the front page, I know its long, but you can see the ENTIRE "Outfoxed" documentary from here and see how INCREDIBLY subversive, and insidious this Adminstration and Fox News truly is...AND an intelligent person can also see, where SO MANY of the NeoBush style diggsters are BORN from. Truly disgusting and intellectually stunted people they have MADE themselves. This is what happens when you worship money and lies...THE TRUTH ESCAPES YOU!!! But not forever, cuz you WILL know in the end how evil and wrong you were to accuse people of Hating America and not Supporting our Soldiers, all the while it was YOUR choices that MURDERED THEM and Removed Dignity from this Democracy.
    • Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1...what the hell is a "neobushie"?
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A) It's an old article (12 days - that's antique here!)
      B) Don't blogspam (link / promote other digg articles)
    • ColdSnickersBar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Way to spam, smart guy.
    • southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0If I want SPAM I would go to the grocery.......

      Neobushie, that sounds like something out of the Matrix
  • bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5what a bunch of surrendering monkeys :D
  • SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmmm, it relates, as does everything since 9/11, or didnt you know? So if EVERY DIG article results in partisan bickering, it is fair to point out to EVERYONE who exactly is was who created this entire of IGNORANCE by Omission or Subversion...

    Does it say in the Digg rules to not to refer to someone elses article if you decide it pertains to the matter at hand? WELL, ANSWER BOY!!!

    12 days old? Well, Im sure everyone appreciates your taking the reigns and telling them what info they do and dont need to process...GOOD JOB SON!!!

    http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/VIDEO_OUTFOXED_Rupert_Murdoch_s_War_on_Journalism

    Digg this article, not only does it explain the rediculousness of arguing with someone of the likes I just did, but if you watch it, then you can watch the medias coverage of THIS topic and see where the deceptive OPINIONATIGN is coming from, rather than any FACTUAL substantial information neccessary to make an informed decision.

    THANK YOU!!!
    • ColdSnickersBar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's blogspam, BUT I love THE random capitalization GOING ON in your OPINIONATIGN's.

      WELL, ANSWER BOY!!! GOOD JOB SON!!!
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@SoulEvent
      I assume you were replying to me. I guess since you don't understand DIGG etiquette, you also don't know how to use the "[reply]" link located just under the thread header of the person you want to reply to...

      I guess from the tone of your response that you didn't take kindly to my suggestions. But, that's all they are. If you want to promote the video, link to it directly, not to the DIGG article which then points to it. No one knows that you're not self-promoting. Additionally, articles that are 12-days old are not going to create sudden and popular interest enough to bring them to the front page.

      Oh, and judging by your post, you are the BOY here.
    • southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0

      By the way you talk, you sound like you were livin' in a trailer park or something

    • SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@soutwestnut

      reply buttern? wut dat be dere?
      You do realize that sometimes there are errors on digg? And that when your at the bottom of the page you see the add comment right in front so you dont necessarily think to hit the reply right away? I so sorry everyone wont adhere to your standards of responding to news articles on a site generated to bring about discussion on MANY random subjects.

      So...If...I...Use...Too...Many...Elipses, I am sorry, Please show me how MASTER digger? I mean, I saw sooo much professionalism in your two to three line insults that didnt mention a damn thing important other than you didnt like my post and thought anything not on YOUR timeline shouldnt be put up here.

      Dont judge justifiable hostility with immaturity...people tried being decent and voicing their opinions, but the disgusting people running this country and those that support them began shouting treason and continued supporting lies...so the civility ISSUE really doesnt matter to them and to each his own...I will respond to intelligent people intelligently, and I will respond to IDIOT on their own terms. Cant you tell?

      Did I make it clear enough about what I think of your criticism of my random, quickly typed replies? Not every reply has to be a bickering contest, but if your gonna be an idiot and pretend random posts are any more or less factual than some ***** proofing his thesis before he posts it...then I only have two words for ya...

      Sic Balls
    • southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sic Balls? Are you saying that you have sic balls, you should go to the doctor cause that sounds bad!
      Do I care what you think of my post? NOPE(see I can use caps too) I will say what I want and laugh. I find humor in watching you get mad at what I wrote. I will always toss insults at those that need it, in this case you needed it. Sorry, but you were a moron in that last point. Am I a master digger , no. Who cares.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Now Democrats will want to stay or expand (since they are next in line for the White House anyways)
  • SkittlesUSA, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The solution on whether or not to stay in Iraq:

    Let the Iraqi's vote on it. If they do not want us here like some people say, they will vote us out. If they want us here, they will keep us here.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The only issue with this (and I thought about that before) is that the Sunnis are in the minority by far, but they are the ones that are currently most in need of our protection. The Shia militias are more powerful, and subsequently any vote would go there way for sure. Then again, that may not be an issue, either.

      However, if we leave, it doesn't bode well for the Sunni minority.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Let the Iraqi's vote on it."

      The Iraqis elected a govt. That govt. wants US troops to stay. Are you satisfied?
  • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The real question we have to ask ourselves: What would Picard do?
  • drewlander, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0It just amazes me to see soo many people not want to win a war their country is fighting. Instead of going "okay, let's win this thing, lets do it the best way we can, and then sort out the politics/mistakes later", we have a "oh man its taking more than 2 months and some people died, WE GOTTA GET OUT OF HERE" mentallity. It's the "not here in 30 minutes or free" thinking, I cannot even bear to think what it will be like when I am 50. It is very funny, before Bush was president, people from BOTH parties said Saddam had WMD's, had used WMD's, and needed to be gotten rid of, even Clinton started the policy of regime change in Iraq, and the ENTIRE WORLD said the same thing we did about WMD's (and no, they were not using our data). All you people with 20 minute memories are right, let's leave, it's too much work, why win, playing Wii is much more fulfilling. The Australians have it right, lets win, and sort out the gunk later. We are in too deep to pull out without dire consequences. If we pull out too soon, the slaughter that will ensue will be on YOUR heads. Keep the temper tantrums flying! Man it's cold, GLOBAL WARMING!
    • hittnrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0These music thieves don't care about anything but being able to say "GWB lost".

      "We gotta get outta there and get the military back to the social program we want it to be", is their screed.

      Despite their claim of the opposite, this IS all about Clinton.

      Good post.
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is this so hard to understand? Clinton and Bush are both stooges for the corporate oil/banking cartel that is responsible for the Iraq genocide. The last 2 presidential elections(at least) are proven fraud. Politics is just staged propaganda. Our country is not responsible for this war. Our country is being systematically destroyed, just as Iraq was destroyed, but by a different method. Our troops are cannon fodder being sacrificed for pure greed. This war is lost. Completely. Lost before it started. The neocons got exactly what they wanted, but we stand to lose everything. Any citizen who publicly criticizes policy is now placed on a no-fly list. We are in the last ditch friend.
    • SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1EASY FOR YOU TO SAY *****, APPARENTLY LIFE ONLY MATTERS IF ITS YOURS RIGHT?
  • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Strategic Vision, LLC (who?) via The Nation (left of far left)

    Yeah, I believe this.

  • DoomII, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hmpf, if the kid is done shooting in Irak. I wonder what 911ish stunts he'll need to provoke another war. I guess Iran is a safe bet. I'd be careful if I was a US. citizen in one of the major cities: probably the neocons will again set off some bomb (or airplanes) somewhere to make more wardeals.

    But wether the USA stays or goes in Irak doesn't really matter, it's already a hell nowl. I'm okay with it though, the usa isnt as bad as other mighty countries. Maybe because they are crippled by corruption. Just 2 countries suffering a big civil war, because of America is okay in my book. As far as supreme power goes. I'm glad I dont have to live there though.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You've been listening to Rosie O'Donnel too much.
  • mjl5629, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I hate to do this but I must.

    Find out first hand how US Soldiers feel about involuntary recalls...

    http://digg.com/politics/US_Soldiers_voice_opinions_concerning_involuntary_military_recalls

    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you hate to do it, then don't... blogspam.
  • LaserLine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Saying "yes" is a lot different from voting "yes."
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Exiting Iraq will result in genocide. Is that what you want populist? You certainly have been pushing for it, based on your submissions.
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1will result? a million innocent people are dead or displaced. what the hell is your definition?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.