Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 9, 2007.
so what happens now?
You already know the answer- stay the course.
We sit there waiting for more soldiers to die, until we get a new president with at least some common sense.
Maybe it'll sway one more teetering Republican? Hopefully.
This certainly sounds like it'd play well for the Democrats: the American people don't want us there. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there. The US government doesn't want us there, excepting the President and Vice-President, who are too cowardly to face reality.
Maybe it will take the Iraqi government telling us to GTFO to actually convince Bush to GTFO.
Then again, I don't know if ANYTHING can convince Bush of that.
And this guy.
These guys too.
Remind me again who's supporting the troops, and who should listen to their generals on the ground?
Well, it's official. Just about everybody wants a timetable except Bush.
And solvs...love the TV ad in that last link!
Your friends at alternet get their statistics info from www.worldpublicopinion.org who post such polls as this:
Just FYI, to get a 60/40 split like that you have to poll, hmm... let see.. 10 people!
Even if they polled 100 people the odds are seriously against getting an exact 60/40 split.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment of the article, but the percentages in the polls are not conducive to a large number of people polled. There is no margin of error and the percentages look like they're from a high school mock election.
If they were ready to take care of business on their own we'd already be out!
I love the comments about the time table too. Of course, the terrorists like all the proposals that include a timetable. Makes it easier for them to plan.
Actually, I'm warming up to the idea of protecting the Kurds and then allowing the Sunnis and Shiites to fight to the last 8 year old.
We shouldn't be there in the first place. To say that "they are not ready" for us to withdraw, is like a rapist saying he's not going to withdraw because he thinks the victim is not "ready". We raped that land and its people. We invaded illegally, we committed war crimes, we murdered, tortured and destroyed. The victim is fighting back, and all the neocons can say is "aww, but she likes it!". We are vicious invaders who conducted a murderous war based on lies and fabrications. The only thing we must do is leave. NOW. Yesterday would have been better than today, and today will be better than tomorrow. We don't get to establish any criteria whatsoever for leaving - again, it's like a rapist in the bed - every additional second spent there is a crime, and the rapist must be extracted from the situation. It is 100% irrelevant what happens after we leave. The victim doesn't need the rapist to stick around for any reason whatsoever.
As to the Kurds. I love it how ignorant neocons are. A hallmark of a conservative, really. Ignorance: it's why American imperialism and interventionism fails. All I can say, you'll be surprised at what the Kurd's attitude toward the U.S. is. Kurds support us up to a point, and for reasons not often spoken about in the mainstream press. You guys know nothing about what's going on there, and how complex the Kurdistan situation is. Good luck creating an American puppet Kurdistan. I'll be laughing, watching the neocons fail there too... one hint: Iran. Just watch what happens
Forget that! Let's use five!
Interesting. The same could be said about liberals.
As for reasons for being there, I can't help it if Saddam lured us there for the first Gulf War and then drew a big beady target on himself by convincing the intelligence community that he was a bigger threat than he was. His bad.
Your odds of getting a 60/40 split are exactly the same as getting a 57/43 split. They are all just in the continuum on the number lines between 1-100. Admittedly without any other information to back them up like margin of error it makes them suspect, not the splits. If I poll 13695 people in a 2 option poll and 5478 answer one way I get a 60/40 split. Admittedly it's only 1 out of 13695 different ratios I can end up with but it's not any less likely than any of the other ratios.'
Back to the topic:
What happens if the Iraqi law makers decide they want us out now and declare war on the occupying nations? Could they pull in allies against us since we are the occupiers? A world war that we instigated?
I thought we were supposed to be smarter than him. Oops.
I'm not going to address the "liberals" nonesense as that's a common conservative trope ("liberals are traitors" despite the fact that with conservative quality of "patriotism" we always end up in disaster).
Saddam paid for his crime wrt. Kuwait. You may not think it was enough of a price - and a fair argument could be made, I'm open to such an argument - but then you must address the extremely valid reasons why Bush Sr. didn't push further (I've linked to his explanation before on this board). However, bottom line, is he paid for Iraq 1 war - done. We don't get to come back for seconds.
And he didn't draw any bead on himself. Bush and his team were determined to go to war, and the intelligence was all cooked (actually, technically it was called "stovepiping" - google for details). The key point was that it was out of Saddam's hands - he did all he could in the weeks leading up to the war - Blix had a free hand, and all that was cut short, deliberately and illegally by Bush. The war is illegal, and we are war criminals.
I don't expect the U.S. to care about such niceties as law or simple decency, but ultimately it will not be legal or moral arguments that will determine what happens to us in Iraq. It won't even be strategic arguments - since if those mattered we wouldn't embark on this insanely self-destructive war to begin with. What will matter is that we'll get plainly bled and beaten out of there - just like in Vietnam. The sooner it happens, the lower our casualties. The longer takes, the more we'll spend in blood and treasure. The outcome is already determined. All we're doing is haggling over "when" and "how many dead". The conservatives of course want to pay as much as possible in blood and treasure (in keeping with their general fiscal discipline as seen in the last few years of accumulating the gratest debt in human history). There is good and bad in both approaches - if we follow the liberals, we cut our losses, but ultimately may pay a higher price, because without heavy, heavy losses the conservatives may be able to start another war without learning lessons (ignorance is the hallmark of conservatism). If on the other hand we stay for a long time and are so utterly bled dry and beaten to such a pulp that we beg and cry to be let out - well, that may be just the level of pain necessary to penetrate even thick conservative skulls... and that way we won't attack another country for no good reason. Pick your poison.
OMFG, is this the new anti-poll logic? It's too close to an even number so it's impossible that the sample size was representative? Is someone in the world actually that stupid?
It's painful to watch obeygiant tell us about polling and statistics. This isn't the first time either.
when all the straws have already been grasped...
I have a feeling obeygiant was the guy in the back of my Prob & Stats class that failed...three times.
Haven't you ever played roulette? The odds of hitting 00 are 37 to 1 but it doesn't mean it comes up every 37 times. You could play a 500 times but it would never come up. So are the odds better that you'll see the 1/13695th time and see the 60/40 split or are there better odds that this is a screwed up poll.
Here is a Gallup poll about a similiar subject.
I don't see any 60/40 splits in this one.
Or this one. I could continue.
If you've ever done any real polling or surveys you'll see that 60% to 40% doesn't come up in large groups of people. sorry.
Jesus, its not even valentine's day and look at all these love letters. I'm touched.
When they conveniently sum to 100, and no margin of error makes me more suspicious than the fact that they are even numbers? Why do large groups have to end up on odd boundaries? Why can't a large sample end up in splits of nice round numbers?
Do you decry the invalidity of election results when they report 57% to 43% because in the large numbers sampled there's no way it was exactly 57%? It would have to be 57.2573032% cause 57 is too nice of a number?
how do you know it wasn't 60.000234% to 39.000766% and rounded to simplify.
I'm not saying that these are valid but be more suspicious of the lacking margin of error information but what would make a poll split of 57/43 more believable than a 60/40 split?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 ...
Nothing. You'd have to be just as thick to think 60-40 is impossible or indicitive of fraud as you would be to think 57/43 was.
I flip a coin ten times and all ten times it comes up heads. The odds are that my next flip is due for tails, right?
I am in utter disbelief.
I'm not the one who's slamming the validity of the poll based on the even number, I'm trying to figure out why the fact that the numbers are multiples of 10 would make anyone believe that it is less valid than a poll that was split on prime numbers.