Iraqis Want Us Out

OrnotBitwise

Watermelon
Before someone asks, no, I do not think that the results of one poll -- or two polls, in this instance -- "prove" that we should immediately leave Iraq. What I want to point out is that those who assert that we are making progress in Iraq and those who believe that there is some reasonable hope of our "winning" -- whatever the hell that means -- in Iraq are increasingly short of real evidence to back up their claims.

(09-27) 04:00 PDT Baghdad -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers. In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to polling results obtained by the Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released today by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believe the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends to keep permanent military bases in the country.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...27/MNGPOLDIHT1.DTL&hw=iraq+poll&sn=003&sc=817
 
Before someone asks, no, I do not think that the results of one poll -- or two polls, in this instance -- "prove" that we should immediately leave Iraq. What I want to point out is that those who assert that we are making progress in Iraq and those who believe that there is some reasonable hope of our "winning" -- whatever the hell that means -- in Iraq are increasingly short of real evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...27/MNGPOLDIHT1.DTL&hw=iraq+poll&sn=003&sc=817


What this does show is that the leadership of Iraq, one Jalal Talibani who seemed to magically emerge from the region controlled by the Kurds, to suddenly lead the government of Iraq when Bush became dissatisfied with the former leader who rejected a longer American stay, who just a few days ago called for America to stay indefinitely, is completely out of touch with the Iraqi people who responded to this poll. Sort oflike our own fearless and feckless leader George Bush...

And where did this magically appearing savior from the North come from and what was his prior history with the American government and its many and varied intelligence agencies????? Can you say former CIA operative???? Who would have ever thought that!!!!!!
 
What really matters is what their parliament thinks though.

If you actually believe this for a minute you're deluded and should seek medication. I strongly recommend some sort of mild anti-psychotic. With any luck you'll return to the real world in a few days.
 
Ok why don't you elaborate on your mocking of my sanity.

What body do you think the American government is more likely to consider the Iraqi public at large or the wishes of their elected assembly?
 
Nope it is what the people want that matters. else the violence will not stop and will grow if the people want us out.

I am talking about it from a foreign relations perspective. Foreign policy isn't determined by polling random people on the streets of a foreign nation.
 
Nope it is what the people want that matters. else the violence will not stop and will grow if the people want us out.

I am talking about it from a foreign relations perspective. Foreign policy isn't determined by polling random people on the streets of a foreign nation.
The polls do, however, tend to support the position that the Iraqi government we set up is decreasingly representative of the Iraqi people.

I question the Iraqi parliament's legitimacy . . . or at least its viability.
 
The polls do, however, tend to support the position that the Iraqi government we set up is decreasingly representative of the Iraqi people.

I question the Iraqi parliament's legitimacy . . . or at least its viability.


Well barring outside influence if this is so it will be reflected in their next election.
 
Ok why don't you elaborate on your mocking of my sanity.

What body do you think the American government is more likely to consider the Iraqi public at large or the wishes of their elected assembly?

I guess you haven't been keeping up, the answer is neither. Just yesterday, it was noted that over half the parliament members are no longer even in Iraq, most of those who have absented themselves from the country are now living in London. And they have little interest in returning until things calm down considerably which means that the American troop and intelligence presense will have to be reduced dramatically. Oh, yeah, who's running Iraq...Gee, I don't know, but I have a strong suspicion based on my readings and inherent suspicion of American poopaganda, especially during a war, and that is a certain American official whose initials just happen to be G "w" B!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
I guess you haven't been keeping up, the answer is neither. Just yesterday, it was noted that over half the parliament members are no longer even in Iraq, most of those who have absented themselves from the country are now living in London. And they have little interest in returning until things calm down considerably which means that the American troop and intelligence presense will have to be reduced dramatically. Oh, yeah, who's running Iraq...Gee, I don't know, but I have a strong suspicion based on my readings and inherent suspicion of American poopaganda, especially during a war, and that is a certain American official whose initials just happen to be G "w" B!!!!!!!

The assembly is still the body that speaks for the Iraqi interests whether they are impotent or not. The parliament as a whole has been supportive of continued American presense. As far as international politics go they will be the bell weather of whether or not the Iraqis want us in or not, not a polling of the people.

I think you misunderstand what I meant in my initial comment.
 
The polls do, however, tend to support the position that the Iraqi government we set up is decreasingly representative of the Iraqi people.

I question the Iraqi parliament's legitimacy . . . or at least its viability.


Well barring outside influence if this is so it will be reflected in their next election.
Not necessarily. When people lose faith -- or never had faith in the first place -- in the legitimacy of their government the electoral process itself loses validity. They stop participating, in other words.

That hasn't happened yet in Iraq. I'm just predicting that it will. It almost has to since this government was effectively installed by a foreign power.
 
I guess you haven't been keeping up, the answer is neither. Just yesterday, it was noted that over half the parliament members are no longer even in Iraq, most of those who have absented themselves from the country are now living in London. And they have little interest in returning until things calm down considerably which means that the American troop and intelligence presense will have to be reduced dramatically. Oh, yeah, who's running Iraq...Gee, I don't know, but I have a strong suspicion based on my readings and inherent suspicion of American poopaganda, especially during a war, and that is a certain American official whose initials just happen to be G "w" B!!!!!!!

The assembly is still the body that speaks for the Iraqi interests whether they are impotent or not. The parliament as a whole has been supportive of continued American presense. As far as international politics go they will be the bell weather of whether or not the Iraqis want us in or not, not a polling of the people.

I think you misunderstand what I meant in my initial comment.

No I didn't misunderstand a word you said. You're just completely wrong that's all. In the first place, if you haven't noticed Bush doesn't seem to give a shit about "international politics" and in the second place, Bush will stay in Iraq as long as he damn well pleases, with or without the approval of the Iraqi people or their parliament. And if he can't get the approval of their leadeship on that he will have that leadership replaced by a former CIA agent/informant/operative who can be trusted to do his bidding. You really need to read more history of the American modus operendi in these types of circumstances. And you always seemed fairly reasonable too...this really isn't rocket science, it's power politics pure and simple, HEGEMONY, writ large. When Bush was most recently asked about leaving Iraq what did he say. Do you remember? Here's a quick refresher. I'm not exactly sure about the precise phasing but these all the words he said. "We're gonna be there as long as I'm president." Anything in there anywhere about the Iraqi Parliament???? Let me know if you find it!!!!
 
No I didn't misunderstand a word you said. You're just completely wrong that's all. In the first place, if you haven't noticed Bush doesn't seem to give a shit about "international politics" and in the second place, Bush will stay in Iraq as long as he damn well pleases, with to without the approval of the Iraqi people or their parliament.

There is a difference though between it being totally inconsequential and it having an effect. I never said that the opinion of the assembly would be the guiding hand behind Bush's policy. But you are naive if you think that having the assembly's support doesn't make things easier and a lack of supoort makes things more difficult.

Do you not think that it will turn public opinion agains the war even more so if the Iraqi government itself is asking us to leave? It will change the dynamic of being there to help them to being there as an unwanted occupiers. Despite what you may think public opinion matters at least somewhat to this administration.

And if he can't get the approval of their leadeship on that he will have that leadership replaced by a former CIA agent/informant/operative who can be trusted to do his bidding. You really need to read more history of the American modus operendi in these types of circumstances. And you always seemed fairly reasonable too...this really isn't rocket science, its power politics pure and simple, HEGEMONY, writ large. When Bush was most recently asked about leaving Iraq what did he say. Do you remember? Here's a quick refresher. And Im not exactly sure about the precise phasing but these all the words he said. "We're gonna be there as long as I'm president." Anything in there anywhere about the Iraqi Parliament???? Let me know if you find it!!!!

I am fully aware of history. Bush most certainly will do as he wishes as long as he has at least a portion of the consent of the government and people this hasn't become a dictatorship yet. At this time Bush cannot remove the government and put a stooge in his place at least not at this time. You would make it appear that Bush is not limited in any way from that which he wishes to do. This isn't so for things would be far worse if he could just do as he pleases. Pragmatism and politics are still in play.

Installing a man like Ayed Allawi could be done during the transitional period. Doing the same thing after Bush touted the victory of Iraqi democracy would make him look like a fool. In order to install such a person he would have to declare that the system has failed and that this is an emergency situation.

One thing about Bush is that he is extremely reluctant to admit failure.
 
What really matters is what their parliament thinks though.


They don't want to be beheaded for being collaborators with the americans.

And they probably don't trust iraqi police - who are infiltrated with militias and insurgents - to protect them, when american troops are gone.

Muqtada Al Sadr's party members in parliament will probably be safe. They have street cred, as being non-collaborators.

*Disclaimer for Sean Hannity fans: No, this is not an endorsement of Al Sadr.
 
One thing about Bush is that he is extremely reluctant to admit failure.
//

I nominate IHG for understatement of the year award ;)
 
No I didn't misunderstand a word you said. You're just completely wrong that's all. In the first place, if you haven't noticed Bush doesn't seem to give a shit about "international politics" and in the second place, Bush will stay in Iraq as long as he damn well pleases, with to without the approval of the Iraqi people or their parliament.

There is a difference though between it being totally inconsequential and it having an effect. I never said that the opinion of the assembly would be the guiding hand behind Bush's policy. But you are naive if you think that having the assembly's support doesn't make things easier and a lack of supoort makes things more difficult.

Do you not think that it will turn public opinion agains the war even more so if the Iraqi government itself is asking us to leave? It will change the dynamic of being there to help them to being there as an unwanted occupiers. Despite what you may think public opinion matters at least somewhat to this administration.

And if he can't get the approval of their leadeship on that he will have that leadership replaced by a former CIA agent/informant/operative who can be trusted to do his bidding. You really need to read more history of the American modus operendi in these types of circumstances. And you always seemed fairly reasonable too...this really isn't rocket science, its power politics pure and simple, HEGEMONY, writ large. When Bush was most recently asked about leaving Iraq what did he say. Do you remember? Here's a quick refresher. And Im not exactly sure about the precise phasing but these all the words he said. "We're gonna be there as long as I'm president." Anything in there anywhere about the Iraqi Parliament???? Let me know if you find it!!!!

I am fully aware of history. Bush most certainly will do as he wishes as long as he has at least a portion of the consent of the government and people this hasn't become a dictatorship yet. At this time Bush cannot remove the government and put a stooge in his place at least not at this time. You would make it appear that Bush is not limited in any way from that which he wishes to do. This isn't so for things would be far worse if he could just do as he pleases. Pragmatism and politics are still in play.

Installing a man like Ayed Allawi could be done during the transitional period. Doing the same thing after Bush touted the victory of Iraqi democracy would make him look like a fool. In order to install such a person he would have to declare that the system has failed and that this is an emergency situation.

One thing about Bush is that he is extremely reluctant to admit failure.

Unfortunately Bush just did what you say here he would be unable to do, that is remove one person who he didn't like and replace them with another one who is more reliable and more likely to support his program without question. The original Prime Minister of the most recent incarnation of the ever evolving Iraqi government was Ibrahim al Jaafari but then he called for the complete withdrawal of all American forces in Iraq. Remember that??? This is recent. Real recent. Bush didn't like that, and shortly thereafter this Jaafari was replaced by the CIA agent/operative/provacateur Mr. Talifari. In other words, Bush has recently done the very thing you claim he couldn't do, now. Believe it or not Bush is the conqueror of Iraq and the whole notion of democracy under the current conditions is well, a little farfetched and unlikely. Does that mean that things will get harder for Bush, sure does, but as you may have noticed the more difficult things get the more mulish Bush becomes. But we will just have to agree to disagree here. I also strongly believe that the CIA was behind the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque that really and finally set off the sectarian war and all the violence that has resulted from it. And if I had some time and money and could speak Arabic and could get to Iraq and could live more than a week after my arrival (I know that is a lot of coulds but...) I bet I could prove it. That's how big of a crack-pot freak I am. But I believe strongly that I am correct about this.
 
Last edited:
This is a great opportunity to point out a major difference between pinhead liberals and normal people. A pinhead liberal believes we should live in a society governed by polls, that the perfect utopia is a place where a poll can immediately determine the wishes and wants of the majority, and this will be the law of the land. If the poll reflects something different next week, we can change the laws, but everything is predicated on the results of the poll data, and what the people want. This is largely how they continue to justify their loony positions on things... A CNN Poll says most Americans hate Bush... An ABC Poll says most Americans blame Bush.... A Rasmussen poll says Bush is loved by only his mother, with a 2% margin of error.... Since the majority in the poll feel this way, it must be justified and point to the correct way to go! This is how all liberal pinheads think, and it's the whole problem with liberal pinheads running the country.

You can't govern a nation by popular poll. If it were possible, someone would have adopted the form of government by now, which eliminated the expense and bureaucracy of a congress, parliament, or any elected officials, other than people to conduct the polls. Perhaps some of you neosocialist new age hippies can go overthrow some European country, and establish a government run by popular poll, and tell us how long it lasts?

The problem is this, people who participate in a poll, are asked a static question, without any regard for the consequences of their answer, or the implications of what they feel at the moment, on the historic outcome and end result. Therefore, devoid of reasonable logic, you merely have an emotional knee-jerk reaction, and you can't govern or lead a nation on emotion alone.

Most people want to make more money... Most people want prices to be low... Most people want industry and commerce to provide jobs... Most people in a Muslim country, don't want a Christian army being there. In the words of the immoral philosopher, Mick Jagger... You can't always get what you want.

Let's have the Pinhead University Survey Group, or whateverthefuck Pinhead Liberal goon squad conducted this poll, to ask the Iraqi people... Do you prefer America leave Iraq a secure and relatively peaceful nation living under a democracy where the people have voice in government, or do you prefer America leave Iraq to collapse in utter chaos and civil war, only to be overtaken by thugs and terrorists who will proclaim themselves your ruler and dictate you again? Let's ask the Iraqi people THAT question, and see what the results will be?
 
I( wonder if about 40% of our population has extreme difficult in admitting to having made a mistake ? hmmmm

The remainig devout bush supporters on here have that trait....
 
Back
Top