It is a long shot!

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
that 91% is a [censored] and leading statistic. I dont see how you can get out of it "91% of iraqis want us out". you are making a dangerous and stupid transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

My english is bad, so i kindly ask you to help me out here.

On the question ‘Which of the following would you like the Iraqi government to ask the US-forces to do’ 91% of iraqis answered 'withdraw within up to 2 years'.

If refusing to accept 91% - would this result be misleading too:
only 9% favour 'only reducing US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq'. All the others would like US forces to leave in 2 years max.

How would you interpret this poll then?

In case of referendum and voting 51% for leave Iraq, should the US administration accept the reality and the most democraticly expressed will of Iraqis or not?

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that 91% is a [censored] and leading statistic. I dont see how you can get out of it "91% of iraqis want us out". you are making a dangerous and stupid transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

My english is bad, so i kindly ask you to help me out here.

On the question ‘Which of the following would you like the Iraqi government to ask the US-forces to do’ 91% of iraqis answered 'withdraw within up to 2 years'.

If refusing to accept 91% - would this result be misleading too:
only 9% favour 'only reducing US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq'. All the others would like US forces to leave in 2 years max.

How would you interpret this poll then?

In case of referendum and voting 51% for leave Iraq, should the US administration accept the reality and the most democraticly expressed will of Iraqis or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a loaded question, and Im betting that the true number of people that want us out of iraq is 100%, both here in the US, adn in Iraq. The question should have been worded better, as I have no doubt many of the participants took the poor wording to mean something other than what you are trying to convey either way it makes the people saying "pull out right now" look like a bunch of maroons. This poll could easily be taken as a positive if you want to spin it like that too, due to bad wording "when will iraq be stable enough to no longer need us involvement" etc.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The US doesn't seek to control New Zealand or exploit its resources for self-interest. And of course, the answer to your question is "No" -- genuinely promoting democratic ideals != propping up only those democracies you can control or exploit -- such a view is complete "doublespeak", can't you see why?


[/ QUOTE ]

The US doesn't need to control NZ, because democratic states fundamentally don't cause threats to the US.

Similarly, the US doesn't need to control a future democratic Iraq. The trick, however, is to get it stable as soon as possible.

The whole concept of promoting regime change is that the replacement is a fundamentally sounder base than the pre-existing arrangement. I assume that a democratic and free Iraq would be far less of a menace to the West and to its neighbours than Saddam's Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Question: Which of the following would you like the Iraqi government to ask the US-forces to do:
- 37% withdraw within 6 months
- 34% withdraw within 1 year
- 20% withdraw within 2 years
---------------------------------
= 91%
- 09% only reduce as the security situation improves


[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably, we can interpret the 37% of Iraqis as wanting US forces to leave immediately. The other 63% don't want an immediate withdrawal, but rather, a withdrawal at some stage in the future.

So, why would 63% want US forces to stay for the time being but to leave later? I think it is safe to assume that they feel that the US forces are currently doing a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
also regarding the question of democracy, Iran would be shining in the company of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (and most of other countries in the region).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like a fight over who is the tallest midget is in the circus. Regardless of who wins, they're still pretty damn short.

[ QUOTE ]
You should accept US never wanted democracy in the Middle East countries as they can work much better with dictatorships.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is right. The idea that the US has a better relationship with dictatorships (eg, old Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) than democracies (Israel, India, Japan, France) is rediculous. You can't seriously mean this, can you?

[ QUOTE ]
My answer is that the administration should first of all, admit its huge mistake in the Iraq war, and admit to its lies to get the country were it is. Then maybe, we need talk reparations?

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the oft-repeated maxims of the left is that there were "lies" to go to war. To use a poker metaphor, if you put your opponent on a hand (or even a range of hands), and turn out to be wrong, you're not a liar. Sure, you made an incorrect judgement, but in a world of incomplete information, you can only make decisions on the basis of what you know.

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure anything can be resolved diplomatically if there is a will!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to the Jews, the Sudanese, the Kosovars, the Kurds...

[ QUOTE ]
PS I note that you are still following the gullible line and confusing Iraq and Al Qeada. Iraq, under Saddam, was an opponent of Al Qeada!

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I am particularly gullible, but I believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together to advance their common interests.

[ QUOTE ]
In case of referendum and voting 51% for leave Iraq, should the US administration accept the reality and the most democraticly expressed will of Iraqis or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the more practical case, if the Iraqi Government asked the foreign soldiers to leave, of course I believe they should.

Of course, the democratically elected Iraqi leaders are begging Coalition forces to stay.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The US doesn't need to control NZ, because democratic states fundamentally don't cause threats to the US.


[/ QUOTE ]

That should read, The US doesn't need to control NZ, because NZ has no oil or anything else of strategic interest to the US.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
That should read, The US doesn't need to control NZ, because NZ has no oil or anything else of strategic interest to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it shouldn't.

[MidGe]

You live in cuckoo's land, dude. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

How do you justify the assassination of Allende by the US? That was a more democratically elected president than the president of the US.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you justify the assassination of Allende by the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. I don't need to. I'm not a US apologist. I'm just a free thinking individual who benefits from the security and freedom that clear US leadership benefits.


Supporting the liberation of Iraq does not require the endorsement of all US foreign policy from history (such as, your claim about Allende). Similarly, opposing the liberation of Iraq does not require the opposition of all US foreign policy from history (such as, World War 2)

[MidGe]

The only thing I am suggesting is that the US respects democracy only when it suits its strategic interests. Something that seems to escape you.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I am suggesting is that the US respects democracy only when it suits its strategic interests. Something that seems to escape you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, that is not the only thing you are suggesting.

... and the evidence that you provide for this is a coup in Chile, 34 years ago, which was endorsed by the Chilean Parliament at the time (ironically enough, the anniversary is tomorrow).

While we're at it, it would be an understatement to say that the neo-conservatives of today have some serious disagreements with the real-politik of Kissinger et.al. who were then in senior leadership roles.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
You live in cuckoo's land, dude. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

How do you justify the assassination of Allende by the US? That was a more democratically elected president than the president of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, btw, I don't think Allende was assassinated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allende%27s_death seems to come to a consensus that Allende committed suicide - that is, apparently, the prevailing view in now democratic Chile. Is this wrong?