What is Digg?187 Comments
- inactive, 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. - 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.
- 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!
- 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.
- Aeaus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Hear hear for the proper political actions of a free nation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28We will be out of Iraq the day after we are out of Iran........
- inactive, 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. - Noah0504, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17No, we will be out of Iraq so we can move into Iran...
- 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! - mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16antbing
It doesn't matter what you think, this isn't a democracy. - RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17It's like having the cast of Beverly Hillbillies in Washington, but with too much authority.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- abdim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Computer says no...
- 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?). - 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!
- avolant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6thats because you're smart and you understand the value and meaning (and responsibilities) of a sovereign nation
- inactive, 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." - bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5what a bunch of surrendering monkeys :D
- inactive, 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 - jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@whosawhatsis
I dugg you down because you hate America. - inactive, 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. - 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. ) - 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... - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Polls too
- 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. - 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/ - tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would like to see the rest of the survey.
- 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.
- Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Who wouldn't be for our withdrawl in 6 months... as long as we get the job done?
- 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 - 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 - noelsonolson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3buried. 600 people from one state (and likely one city) are the entire party?
fail. learn how 2 poll. - 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. - 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 - 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! - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I hope your definition of "free" includes "no loss of life" and not just "no money".
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/ - 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. - 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. - 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)
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6and if you don't pull out you have to deal with the consequences for decades to come
- 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) - 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 - 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is