Iraq war poll: 61% of Americans want to continue fight

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. 55% would favor sending someone elses kid.

    LOL.

    If the same poll was run asking Americans about sending their own kids, then we would get a real pulse of support for Iraq war.
     
  2. From the link:

    Here’s a look at the most recent New York Times-CBS News poll questions on the Iraq war. The survey of 1,084 Americans was conducted Oct. 27-31.

    It finds that 69 percent of Americans favor continuing the fight for democracy in Iraq, but all but 8 percent of that group also want a change in tactics.

    About 24 to 27 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops removed from Iraq immediately, depending on how the question is asked. Another 26 percent want a smaller number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but not a total withdrawal. About 16 percent want to send more troops, and 27 percent favor the current troop level.

    Troops to Baghdad? Fully 55 percent of Americans would favor sending more U.S. troops to Iraq if they could help gain control of Baghdad and stabilize the country.

    *************************

    So 61 % want a change in tactics. Over 50% favor a reduction in troops levels, with half wanting an immediate pullout. Hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of the administration.

    Regarding the 55% who favor sending more troops to stablilize Baghdad and the country, what do they think those troops would be able to accomplish? The current Iraqi administration has vetoed aggressive tactics, will not disarm militias and in fact is in bed with some of the worst factions carrying out daily attacks on innocent Iraqis.

    The only strategies that have a chance of success will require a near total repudiation of the whole rationale for the exercise, namely dismantling the "democratic" government and installing military rule. Probably an attack on Iran would also be required to force them to back off. I see little chance Bush will go along with any of that, particularly with a cut and run democratic congress breathing down his neck.
     
  3. Again, if the Soviets could not control Afghanistan with strong arm techniques, what makes you think the US would be able to do so in Iraq?

    I say cut and run from stupid pride that keeps us where we don't belong...

     
  4. Iraq is not Afghanistan. We know where most of the insurgents are. We could make it difficult if not impossible for them to operate, but not when the government actually is assisting them or when they are part of the government. We could eliminate them, but there would be enormous civilian casualties. In addition, theywould have less incentive to fight if it became clear that they had no hope of taking over the country. The Taliban were able to control Afghanistan with their own version of strong arm tactics. The Soviets faced a far different situation, with the US and Pakistan providing significant assistance to the mujahideen.
     
  5. Yeah, well, the key word is "if". Ask americans if they would favor sending more troops to Iraq even though there is no reason to believe that it would improve the situation and you'll get a positive answer from 16% of the population.
     
  6. So how will this affect the Dems plan for Iraq?

    Oh wait a minute, they don't yet have a plan, that's right....
     
  7. From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do NOW?

    Increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq: 16 percent.
    Keep the same number: 27 percent (Up from 21% Oct. 5-8)
    Decrease the number: 26 percent.
    Remove all: 24 percent (Down from 30% Oct. 5-8)
    Don't Know: 6 percent.

    Which comes closest to your view:

    The U.S. should continue fighting the war in Iraq using the same military strategy and tactics it is using now: 8 percent.

    The U.S. should continue fighting the war in Iraq but needs to change its strategy and tactics: 61 percent.

    The U.S. should remove all its troops from Iraq: 27 percent.

    Don’t know: 4 percent.
     
  8. But the point is, there is no available strategy that can lead to success. Our current strategy seems to be waiting for the insurgents to get too old to fight and hope no one takes their place.

    To win, we would have to dismantle the Iraqi govrnment, ruthlessly attack the sunni and shiite militias, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process and attack iran. Bush couldn't do that with a republican congress. How can he do it now, even if he awoke long neough to realize it was necessary?

    I've seen this movie, and I know how it ends. With choppers on the rooftop of the US Embassy.
     

  9. ZZZZzzzzzz the difference is we are not trying to take over and subjugate Iraq. You have to be one of the stupidest people on earth. The two are not similar in any way.
     
    #10     Nov 16, 2006