I have no idea what this poll really means

[Predicto]

Right, and that's why Bush has a 34% rating. If they were just upset at Republicans why would his rating be more than twice as high?:doh:

Because he is one person, so you can ask about him in particular.

Congress is 535 people, and an institution. People could hate the current leaders of Congress OR hate the prior leaders of Congress that just got ousted OR hate the current majority in Congress OR hate the current opposition in Congress OR hate their own Congressional reps OR hate all of them on principle OR hate the way the Congress operates in general OR OR OR.

[twa]

Burgold ,those that want us out of Iraq include many that do not want to pull out in a rash manner.

A poll with dates I would have much more faith in if I was you.

Even a rabid Bush supporter like myself would love to bring the troops home.

When is another matter.

[hkHog]

Because he is one person, so you can ask about him in particular.

Congress is 535 people, and an institution. People could hate the current leaders of Congress OR hate the prior leaders of Congress that just got ousted OR hate the current majority in Congress OR hate the current opposition in Congress OR hate their own Congressional reps OR hate all of them on principle OR hate the way the Congress operates in general OR OR OR.

I agree, I'm just saying it cuts both ways. People are upset with both sides. You can't just point at one. That is what I was trying to say but I didn't explain myself very well.

[Burgold]

Burgold ,those that want us out of Iraq include many that do not want to pull out in a rash manner.

A poll with dates I would have much more faith in if I was you.

Even a rabid Bush supporter like myself would love to bring the troops home.

When is another matter.

I was just trying to explain the poll. :laugh: I think this poll reflects displeasure that the major issue people voted on (Iraq and Corruption), have been nodded to and addressed, but not dealt with in any visible or substansive manner.

I don't want us leaving Iraq NOW myself. I think that would have bad short and long term consequences for us and them. I would like the powers that be to generate a plan that could successfully disentangle us though or find a way to salvage or even better triumph.

[AJ_Skins]

The goal should not be leaving, the goal should be succeeding. When we succeed, then we can leave. Or more accurately, we can keep as many troops there as the Iraqis will tolerate, indefinitely, so long as the government is able to maintain control without our help, and we are not taking casualties. It would not hurt to have a troop presence in the region.

[Predicto]

Burgold ,those that want us out of Iraq include many that do not want to pull out in a rash manner.

A poll with dates I would have much more faith in if I was you.

Even a rabid Bush supporter like myself would love to bring the troops home.

When is another matter.

Exactly. I an a rabid liberal who does not want to pull the troops out in a rash manner.

I do, however, want the morons who got our troops stuck in this fiasco in the first place to suffer the political consequences that they so richly deserve. There is nothing more disgusting than starting an unnecessary war, completely screwing up HOW you conduct the war, and then hiding behind the troops to avoid criticism for your stupidity.

[Vinnick]

It does matter. Their Gov't won't be able to work with their neighbors if they are viewed as being run by the United States.

Our being there could be the greatest tool the other countries, and terrorist groups have to recruit people to attack our military. So, it would just be a never ending cycle.

[MurrayH81]

**** that. I MAKE myself benevolent dictator/philosopher king. Bow down ****es. All will be ok now.

OMG, G.A.C.O.L.B. = GWB? Really George, how transparent can you be? We can see you coming in from that RNC server you know.:laugh:

[AJ_Skins]

It does matter. Their Gov't won't be able to work with their neighbors if they are viewed as being run by the United States.

Our being there could be the greatest tool the other countries, and terrorist groups have to recruit people to attack our military. So, it would just be a never ending cycle.

There is a small problem. The goal of Al Qaeda and other groups like them is to inflict enough pain on the United States to drive us out of the region, and cause us to drop our support for Israel. Those conditions are what they view as the primary path to their goal, which is to establish an Islamic State throughout the Muslim world, subject to Sharia law--and also in Israel, which means "driving every Jew into the sea" as it has been poetically described.

So when people say "if we run away the terrorists win", they are not simply trying to score political points, they actually know what they are talking about, and they are speaking the truth. As of right now, the terrorists are having immense success, with total assistance from the Democratic Party and the news media, in achieving precisely their goal, which is to force us to leave. They can't defeat us by force, they can only defeat us by destroying our will, which is the objective in everything they do.

The more bombings they can get on American TV, the more Democrats they can get advancing surrender in Congress, and the more Americans they can convince that it's hopeless, the closer they are to achieving their goal.

[Vinnick]

Us being there helped create that whole Al-Qaeda in Iraq group. That's just what we publically know about.

If the terrorists won and had the region, what would they do? form their own gov't? not bloodly likely. They'd most likely tear each other apart like they're already doing in Iraq.

But, if you don't want to pull back and force the Iraqi troops to fill their Gov'ts promise. Then we can get in the middle of this civil war.

If you think those Dems who can't even tie their shoes, are helping these folks more than the admin and their policies. I have some ocean front land in West Virginia I'd like to sell you.

[JohnLockesGhost]

We need our own John James Cowperthwaite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Cowperthwaite

[AJ_Skins]

Us being there helped create that whole Al-Qaeda in Iraq group. That's just what we publically know about.

If the terrorists won and had the region, what would they do? form their own gov't? not bloodly likely. They'd most likely tear each other apart like they're already doing in Iraq.

But, if you don't want to pull back and force the Iraqi troops to fill their Gov'ts promise. Then we can get in the middle of this civil war.

If you think those Dems who can't even tie their shoes, are helping these folks more than the admin and their policies. I have some ocean front land in West Virginia I'd like to sell you.

We didn't "create" jack squat. Those are just meaningless political talking points. There are foreign fighters who have come into Iraq. I don't know why people refuse to accept the fact that by fighting them there, we have them too preoccupied to think about trying to mount an attack here. It is absolutely true.

[Vinnick]

If we're after "terror" why are we avoiding Pakistan? This is about cutting off the head of the snake right? Seems the ungoverned region in Pakistan is where we should be.

I thought we were going after WMD that was ready to be used on us and our interests years ago. Isn't that what we were told?

[AJ_Skins]

If we're after "terror" why are we avoiding Pakistan? This is about cutting off the head of the snake right? Seems the ungoverned region in Pakistan is where we should be.

I thought we were going after WMD that was ready to be used on us and our interests years ago. Isn't that what we were told?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to ask this question. Do you think we should invade Pakistan?

[Vinnick]

answer my question 1st. why aren't we, if we're sure that's where the Al-Qaeda connected to 9/11 is?

[AJ_Skins]

There is nothing more disgusting than starting an unnecessary war, completely screwing up HOW you conduct the war, and then hiding behind the troops to avoid criticism for your stupidity.

Sure there is. Stabbing your country and its troops in the back during time of war for political gain.

[headexplode]

Actually what the country needs is a ZERO party system and a much more stringent set of requirements for a potential voter proving that they're informed and compitent to vote before allowing them to cast a ballot.

Perhaps part of proving one's competence would be the ability to spell the word competent.

(Just messin' with you, Mass. Or am I?)

All anyone needs to know about this poll (and most opinion polls) is contained in this statement:

"In the national survey of 1,012 likely voters, taken July 12 through July 14 . . ."

So, just over one thousand people out of maybe 150 million or more voters. Sounds pretty scientific to me.

This poll means less than nothing.

[AJ_Skins]

answer my question 1st. why aren't we, if we're sure that's where the Al-Qaeda connected to 9/11 is?

Up to this point, we are not there because we are afraid of what will happen if we unsettle the Musharraf government, which has been at least somewhat helpful to us. In case you are not aware, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

[headexplode]

Sure there is. Stabbing your country and its troops in the back during time of war for political gain.

Yeah, I thought that's what Predicto meant. I think we're still talking about George Bush, here.

[Vinnick]

But we weren't afraid of going into Iraq without a plan on what to do when we defeated that gov't, when we hadn't finished in Afghanistan, or caught Bin Laden "dead or alive"?

Seems a bit misguided. what's next? Invading Peru? because we don't like Argentina?

[AJ_Skins]

Yeah, I thought that's what Predicto meant. I think we're still talking about George Bush, here.

Not in the least. The Democrats were out of power when 9/11 happened, and everything they've done since has been for the sole purpose of getting power back. That means they have to undermine everything the Republicans have done. And the sheep go "baaa"....

[headexplode]

There are foreign fighters who have come into Iraq. I don't know why people refuse to accept the fact that by fighting them there, we have them too preoccupied to think about trying to mount an attack here. It is absolutely true.

I thought a certain high-level general recently debunked this entire theory by publicly saying that the vast majority of the insurgents (his term) in Iraq are, in fact, Iraqis, not foreigners.

[headexplode]

And the sheep go "baaa"....

And you're the shepherd.

[AJ_Skins]

I thought a certain high-level general recently debunked this entire theory by publicly saying that the vast majority of the insurgents (his term) in Iraq are, in fact, Iraqis, not foreigners.

There are homegrown insurgents, and there is "Al Qaeda in Iraq", which is what was referenced, and which is made up almost entirely of foreigners.

[AJ_Skins]

And you're the shepherd.

Whatever anyone wants to say about Iraq or anything else, there is no question the Democratic Party has sought to undermine the Bush Administration's efforts on national security for political purposes. To contend otherwise is laughable.