How do you feel about the war still

[M Dogg™]

Just a question, it's ok to agree of disagree with it, just as long as we don't diss people that see it different. There's a reason Bush won in most eyes, and in a good number of people's eyes, there's a good reason Kerry was a tough challenger. So here we go. An article from the LA TImes.

WASHINGTON — Support for the war in Iraq has continued to erode, but most Americans still are inclined to give the Bush administration some time to try to stabilize the country before it withdraws U.S. troops, the Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

The poll, conducted Saturday through Monday, found that the percentage of Americans who believed the situation in Iraq was "worth going to war over" had sunk to a new low of 39%. When the same question was asked in a similar poll in October, 44% said it had been worth going to war

But when asked whether the United States should begin withdrawing troops after Iraq's election Jan. 30, 52% said the administration should wait to see what the new Iraqi government wanted. More than a third, 37%, said the United States should begin drawing down at least some of its troop strength.

Americans are almost evenly divided over how long U.S. forces should stay in Iraq, the poll found: 47% said they would like to see most of the troops out within a year, while 49% say they could support a longer deployment — including 37% who say the troops should remain "as long as it takes" to secure and stabilize the country.

The results suggest that while Americans have grown more pessimistic about the chances for success in Iraq, most are willing to give President Bush some time to try to turn the operation into a success.

"We are seeing lower support for the war, but I would have expected it to be even lower … given that the main rationale for the war — the weapons of mass destruction — turned out not to be there," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University who is an authority on wartime public opinion.

Mueller noted that support for the war had been falling gradually since the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, but that the erosion had not produced a majority in favor of early troop withdrawals.

"Support for this war is now lower than support for the Vietnam War was at the Tet offensive," Mueller said, citing the 1968 battles that were a turning point in U.S. public opinion then. "But in Vietnam [after Tet], the war continued for several years, and many people continued to support it through enormous casualties."

In Iraq, he noted, the number of U.S. casualties has been far lower than in Vietnam, a probable reason that public pressure for withdrawal has not mounted higher.

On the other hand, public support for increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq — a proposal Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and several other members of Congress have made — is negligible, the poll found. Only 4% of respondents said they would favor increasing American forces after the Iraqi election.

Respondents to The Times poll were downbeat about the results of the war in Iraq on several counts.

Asked which side — the United States or the anti-American insurgents — was winning the war or if it was a stalemate, 58% said that neither side appeared to have the upper hand, while 29% said they believed the United States was winning and 10% said the insurgents were winning.

Respondents were divided on whether the Jan. 30 election was likely to be a turning point leading to a significant improvement in Iraq's stability: 31% said they thought it would have a positive effect, 34% said they expected no significant effect, and 27% said they thought the election would actually lead to more violence.

Respondents also were divided on whether the election would help advance democracy in the Middle East, one of the Bush administration's main goals: 47% said it would probably advance democracy, but 45% said it probably would not.

But 59% said they favored holding the election on schedule despite fears of violence on election day. Over a third, or 35%, said the vote should be postponed.

Almost half, or 45%, said they believed the war had destabilized the Middle East; 24% said they thought it had a stabilizing effect. In April 2003, 52% thought that military action against Iraq would stabilize the situation in the Middle East.

And a large majority, 65%, said they believed the war in Iraq had harmed the United States' image around the world. Only 10% said the U.S. image had been helped.

The Times poll, supervised by polling director Susan Pinkus, surveyed 1,033 adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Matrix Heart]

lol@your sig

Fuck Bush nothing more to say.

[Acgrundy]

seriosly, who in their right mind has anything good to say about the war?

Well, gee Ted, one good thing about the war is all the casualties we got, not to mention the tens of thousands injured.

Good point Bill, but my favorite part about it is that it was completely based on a false pretense.

Nice one there Ted, but you can't forget the awesome fact that its costing American taxpayers millions of dollars.

Too true Bill, and we've also come to be known as the most heroic and friendliest nation in the world.  I'm sure everyone wants to ally with us.

Yep, yep, not only that, but the war helped us scare people into voting Mr. Super Genius into office for the next 4 years.  If we are lucky maybe at the end of this 4 years we can be like our good neighbor Mexico.

Hey, and I hear we have plans to send troops into Iran next, isn't that great?

Oh boy, let the fireworks begin!

[Sikotic™]

Th eUS is definitely confused as hell. WHy else would they blindly support this war.

[Thirteen]

my two cents

things aren't looking too bright for iraq right now but it's at least better than if the US left iraq....if our troops were to pull out, all hell would break loose over there and there's no telling what kind of government will pop up

secondly i think iraq and afghanistan take alot of pressure of the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil... if you look at the terrorists now, the really smart ones that are planning shit aren't hiding in iraq or afghanistan. they are obviously some where else... now if they were to do another terrorist attack on US soil it would spark another world wide outrage and we'd have the afghanistan situation all over again, which we pretty much had the go ahead from everybody to do what ever we wanted in afghanistan...

yes iraq is a terrorist sponge but at least it's there and not here

[Suga Foot]

You can't change the past, so right now I don't really give a fuck.

[Ant]

my two cents

things aren't looking too bright for iraq right now but it's at least better than if the US left iraq....if our troops were to pull out, all hell would break loose over there and there's no telling what kind of government will pop up

secondly i think iraq and afghanistan take alot of pressure of the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil... if you look at the terrorists now, the really smart ones that are planning shit aren't hiding in iraq or afghanistan. they are obviously some where else... now if they were to do another terrorist attack on US soil it would spark another world wide outrage and we'd have the afghanistan situation all over again, which we pretty much had the go ahead from everybody to do what ever we wanted in afghanistan...

yes iraq is a terrorist sponge but at least it's there and not here

its not here yet, but international terrorist incidents have risen every year since 2001.  we created new terrorists in iraq.... we didn't create a super power magnet that sucks them all in there so they cant get over here...

the whole "well i'd rather be fighting them over there, than on our soil" logic makes no sense.... if you understand the basic idea behind terrorism... its a distributed network of people that aren't confined to a particular country.  you can't go pick a country and contain all the terrorists.  al queda is only one terrorist organization, it happens to be the largest, and it happens to operate in 60 countries, and at last count had 60,000 members.... to think you can "fight the terrorists over there" by waging a 'conventional war" in iraq is absurd.  the war on terror will not be won by conventional methods... especially when your not even attacking the correct country in the first place... the whole "well iraq had al queda operatives there" is a BS argument too... so there were a few al queda in iraq, there are a few al-queda in 60 countries!

republicans would have been a lot better off showing some integrity and fixing their current incompetently corrupt party... instead they turned their back on america and on their own values to win 4 more years of authority.  eventually it will come back to haunt them.

[Thirteen]

its not here yet, but international terrorist incidents have risen every year since 2001.  we created new terrorists in iraq.... we didn't create a super power magnet that sucks them all in there so they cant get over here...

the whole "well i'd rather be fighting them over there, than on our soil" logic makes no sense.... if you understand the basic idea behind terrorism... its a distributed network of people that aren't confined to a particular country.  you can't go pick a country and contain all the terrorists.  al queda is only one terrorist organization, it happens to be the largest, and it happens to operate in 60 countries, and at last count had 60,000 members.... to think you can "fight the terrorists over there" by waging a 'conventional war" in iraq is absurd.  the war on terror will not be won by conventional methods... especially when your not even attacking the correct country in the first place... the whole "well iraq had al queda operatives there" is a BS argument too... so there were a few al queda in iraq, there are a few al-queda in 60 countries!

republicans would have been a lot better off showing some integrity and fixing their current incompetently corrupt party... instead they turned their back on america and on their own values to win 4 more years of authority.  eventually it will come back to haunt them.

it's risen since 2001 but no attacks have been made on US soil

since 9/11 happened, we've made two examples to terrorists.... 1. you attack america, kill a bunch of people, and the world give america a free pass to hunt you down...2. if a country's government doesn't cooperate with us, we'll remove it...

so now terrorists know they have no where to hide, america will either pressure the country to hunt them down themselves, or we'll just take down the country

and yes it does make sense because terrorists can attack america in Iraq without a large international backlash and still make america look stupid...plus since there's pretty much no full secure way to protect from attacks in Iraq, there's less planning and less expenses and it's getting the same message across.

terrorists don't care if an attack is made on america soil or on the moon.....it's as long as america looks bad...and right now iraq is the best place to do that with safety

[Acgrundy]

its not here yet, but international terrorist incidents have risen every year since 2001.  we created new terrorists in iraq.... we didn't create a super power magnet that sucks them all in there so they cant get over here...

the whole "well i'd rather be fighting them over there, than on our soil" logic makes no sense.... if you understand the basic idea behind terrorism... its a distributed network of people that aren't confined to a particular country.  you can't go pick a country and contain all the terrorists.  al queda is only one terrorist organization, it happens to be the largest, and it happens to operate in 60 countries, and at last count had 60,000 members.... to think you can "fight the terrorists over there" by waging a 'conventional war" in iraq is absurd.  the war on terror will not be won by conventional methods... especially when your not even attacking the correct country in the first place... the whole "well iraq had al queda operatives there" is a BS argument too... so there were a few al queda in iraq, there are a few al-queda in 60 countries!

republicans would have been a lot better off showing some integrity and fixing their current incompetently corrupt party... instead they turned their back on america and on their own values to win 4 more years of authority.  eventually it will come back to haunt them.

it's risen since 2001 but no attacks have been made on US soil

since 9/11 happened, we've made two examples to terrorists.... 1. you attack america, kill a bunch of people, and the world give america a free pass to hunt you down...2. if a country's government doesn't cooperate with us, we'll remove it...

so now terrorists know they have no where to hide, america will either pressure the country to hunt them down themselves, or we'll just take down the country

and yes it does make sense because terrorists can attack america in Iraq without a large international backlash and still make america look stupid...plus since there's pretty much no full secure way to protect from attacks in Iraq, there's less planning and less expenses and it's getting the same message across.

terrorists don't care if an attack is made on america soil or on the moon.....it's as long as america looks bad...and right now iraq is the best place to do that with safety

scaring terrorists?  are you fucking kidding me?  those terrorists SACRIFICED THEIR OWN LIVES on 9/11.  how the fuck are we going to scare them? 

very poor points you listed. 

If a country's government doesn't cooperate with us we will remove it:  Iraq is a very poor country with a shitty ass military, and we are still haveing major problems with them.  and still nothing good has come from it.

obviously if we had scared terroritst there wouldn't be any terrorist attacks on the us military in Iraq.  What about all those people who have been beheaded?  Gee, we sure scared the shit out them terrorists diddn't we?


Give it up man.  Why do you still feel the need to defend our wrongdoings? 

and btw, the world didn't give america a free pass to hunt them down, America just went ahead and did so anyways.  And BTW, what the fuck did saddam and Iraq have to do with 9/11?

[Thirteen]

scaring terrorists?  are you fucking kidding me?  those terrorists SACRIFICED THEIR OWN LIVES on 9/11.  how the fuck are we going to scare them? 

very poor points you listed. 

If a country's government doesn't cooperate with us we will remove it:  Iraq is a very poor country with a shitty ass military, and we are still haveing major problems with them.  and still nothing good has come from it.

obviously if we had scared terroritst there wouldn't be any terrorist attacks on the us military in Iraq.  What about all those people who have been beheaded?  Gee, we sure scared the shit out them terrorists diddn't we?


Give it up man.  Why do you still feel the need to defend our wrongdoings? 

and btw, the world didn't give america a free pass to hunt them down, America just went ahead and did so anyways.  And BTW, what the fuck did saddam and Iraq have to do with 9/11?

1... where are you getting the word scared from? i have two posts in this thread and not until this sentence have i used the word scared...so your whole argument about me saying that terrorists are scared is null and void

2. we had a free pass to attack afghanistan...not a single country voiced it's opinion on not attacking afghanistan

3. dozens of missions are pulled off succesfully a week with little casualties to the US military...we've lost 1,000 soldier to this war and on the enemy's side...we've lost count...terrorists are attacking more civilians now than the US military

4. the people that are doing the shit in iraq are small time guerilla fighters, they're not big, smart terrorist masterminds... those
 are the ones that will attack america and they know right now that it's not a good time to do so

[M Dogg™]

As I said, so of us dissagree. The point is not to attack those that agree or disagree with us, because no matter how much we argue, we are still in a war. But it is a good idea to read what we all say, the pro-war people need to read what others are saying, the non-war people need to listen to what the other is saying. And from there we can have a conversation that we can actually understand each other. Because no matter what we agrue, the war is still happening.

My opinion, never liked it from the start. Afganistan, wasn't happy about it, but I wasn't going to complain because to many people were pushing for it. Majority rules. Iraq, useless, I think it's like Vietnam, going to war over a lie. And in the end, it's like Vietnam, how can you tell a person to be the last person to die over a lie.

[Acgrundy]

1.

since 9/11 happened, we've made two examples to terrorists.... 1. you attack america, kill a bunch of people, and the world give america a free pass to hunt you down...2. if a country's government doesn't cooperate with us, we'll remove it...

so now terrorists know they have no where to hide, america will either pressure the country to hunt them down themselves, or we'll just take down the country

I summarized that into "scaring terrorists".  what would you call it?

2. We never had a free pass to attack Iraq.

3.  thousands are still dead, even more injured.  and attacks are still happening.  and what benefits has anyone gotten from these deaths?

4. so you are an expert on terrorists huh?  lets leave it up to you to stop the next terrorist attack, since you know these are only "small time terrorists"  and not "big time terrorists that could attack america"

[Thirteen]

1.

since 9/11 happened, we've made two examples to terrorists.... 1. you attack america, kill a bunch of people, and the world give america a free pass to hunt you down...2. if a country's government doesn't cooperate with us, we'll remove it...

so now terrorists know they have no where to hide, america will either pressure the country to hunt them down themselves, or we'll just take down the country

I summarized that into "scaring terrorists".  what would you call it?

2. We never had a free pass to attack Iraq.

3.  thousands are still dead, even more injured.  and attacks are still happening.  and what benefits has anyone gotten from these deaths?

4. so you are an expert on terrorists huh?  lets leave it up to you to stop the next terrorist attack, since you know these are only "small time terrorists"  and not "big time terrorists that could attack america"

1. i would call it examples and keeping them on the run

2. never said we had a free pass to attack iraq

3. it's not even a war anymore, it's defense of a foreign country and yes, people will die and get injured defending a foreign country, especially when they're not wanted there....but our plan is to set up a stable/puppet governement (what ever one you want to choose) and it's too early to tell if that will work out smoothly....it's more than war, you can't just drop bombs on a country and call it a day

4. name the last time a foreign terrorist has attack the US on american soil without big funding or backing of a big terrorists organization? i'll give you until monday to do your homework but i'll give you a hint.....you might be able to find one if that

[Acgrundy]

I ain't gonna argue with you, I give up on arguing with people on wcc, its fucking worthless.  you are never gonna change your mind about this, so there is no point.  hell if terrorist blew up the whitehouse tommorrow, you would still defend your argument.

[Thirteen]

I ain't gonna argue with you, I give up on arguing with people on wcc, its fucking worthless.  you are never gonna change your mind about this, so there is no point.  hell if terrorist blew up the whitehouse tommorrow, you would still defend your argument.

it wouldn't happen

and on the otherhand, if we found the cure to cancer and aids in iraq, you guys would still say we don't belong there and nothing good is going to come from it