Iraqis optimistic — and they want us gone
A new ABC/BBC poll of Iraqis finds that 84 percent believe security in their area is good, and 58 percent say things are going well for their country, up from 22 percent in the same poll in 2007. Sixty-four percent prefer democracy over other types of government. Overall, the improvement of Iraqi outlook is remarkable.
But they still don’t like us. Fifty-six percent still think the U.S. invasion was wrong, compared to 42 percent in support. Only 18 percent say they have a positive opinion of the United States, and 81 percent want us gone from their country by 2011 (with 46 percent wanting us gone even sooner).
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
113 comments Add your comment
George American
March 17th, 2009
3:04 pm
“But they still don’t like us. Fifty-six percent still think the U.S. invasion was wrong, compared to 42 percent in support. ”
Boo hoo. Next time, overthrow your dictator yourself!
The Corporal
March 17th, 2009
3:05 pm
Jay – what do you think the figures would have been in Japan and Germany a couple of years after the war? Tough titty.
P.S. If they prefer democracy, why does their Constitution say, “nothing in this Constitution shall violate the tenets of Islam”?
By the way, here is a great candidate for President Urkel to nominate for a cabinet level position. Right down his alley.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/17/olson.release/index.html
Concerned Citizen
March 17th, 2009
3:06 pm
It comes as no surprise that they don’t like us. Why would anyone want their country invaded by another country? Irrespective of the motives, rationales, or excuses, imperialism is so 20th century.
DPB
March 17th, 2009
3:16 pm
Two interesting points:
First, 84% say security in their area is good. Not bad for a war that the Democrats said was lost. Second, 58% say that things are going well for their country. Here in the US the best you can get under Obama and the Democrats is about 36%.
The Corporal
March 17th, 2009
3:16 pm
To Concerned Citizen:
Trust me; the criminal element, organized crime, drug dealers, counterfeiters, etc., etc. don’t like search warrants or arrests either. I guess it just goes with the territory.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
3:17 pm
Here’s an idea. Let’s go ahead and fight this war on our own land. That way, the libs can surrender early and become prisoners of war. In the end, the guys with guns, conservatives, can take the country back and begin where our founding fathers left off. Good idea?
N.J.
March 17th, 2009
3:18 pm
Hey, George American, they never asked the United States to overthrow their dictator in the first place. No one asked them if they wanted it done. They obviously didnt want it done, otherwise they would have done it themselves. Under Saddam, Iraq had the most technologically advance society in the Middle East, the highest standard of loving outside of the oil states of the Persian Gulf, and the conditions that women lived under were the envy of the Muslim World. Now, women with PhD’s who were university professors under Saddams regime have had to go into hiding from the religious fanatics who are now the strongest political party in Iraq, which need I remind you (actually since you probably never knew to begin with” blew up the American Embassy in Kuwait in 1983.
Yup, that is correct, the Islamic Dawa Party, the political party of the leaders of Iraq are members of the same political party that blew up the American and French Embassies in Kuwait, assisted the Lebanese Shi’ites to form Hezbollah, who copied the Dawa Party by blowing up 221 American Marines in Beirut. Most of the prisoners in Saddams jails were those who assisted in the formation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and who blew up Americans in Beirut or were affiliated with those who sought the use of violence against Americans in the Middle East.
G
March 17th, 2009
3:21 pm
We have paid enough blood and treasure for a needless war against a country that posed no threat at all to us.
For the past 6 years there has been no reality to MISSION ACCOMPLISHED -it will always be Bush’s war!
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
3:29 pm
G, it’s also the democrats war. They signed on to it.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
3:29 pm
Since this war began we have the following stats:
1. 4,259 U S Service Members killed
2. 179 British and 139 from other countries in the collation killed
3. 31,010 U S Military injured
4. 151,000 Iraq Civilians killed
5. Over two million Iraq citizens displaced and fled from their country
6. $17,569,500.00 (and still counting) Georgia Dollars spent
7. $605,580,000,000 (and still counting) U S Dollars spent
No one in Iraq wants to get our more than I do.
BDAtlanta
March 17th, 2009
3:31 pm
Sounds good. Let’s pack up and move out.
G
March 17th, 2009
3:34 pm
Communist, I gave you enough rope, and guess what?
You hung yourself!
williebkind
March 17th, 2009
3:36 pm
G: Take a moment and read the Koran. If you can find no reference to my demise as a non-muslim then I will drop to my knees and kiss your feet……
We have been at war with them since the creation of Israel. Get your head out of biased liberal media and the sand. Just be happy there were very few liberals, if any, who spilled blood in the war. You can see the liberal military dodgers in college or on this blog.
BDAtlanta
March 17th, 2009
3:37 pm
If another country invaded the US and occupied it for 7 years, you’d all be saying whatever it took to get the invaders to leave.
If America was invaded, how many of you would have turned into insurgents yourself.
I’m sure I’d be dead by now from being an insurgent.
Dusty
March 17th, 2009
3:39 pm
Bookman, how many times are you going to beat a dead horse? You bring this up to get the anti-warriors all stirred up when the war is won.
You just can’t get over it, can you? Still got the old anti-Bush anti-war sentiments hanging out to dry, again. How does it go now?..hmmm…USA invaded deliriously happy country and turned the citizens into unhappy slaves of freedom. Hip hip and why did we not run from a terroristic loving dictator with possible wmds!! Good question? I guess most of us are not cowards. You can tell us about the rest.
If you are upset because the Iraqis did not send a valentine, be patient. They will probably get over wartime before you do.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
3:39 pm
G,
did your mom drop you on your head as a child? You gave me enough rope? Dude, seriously, stop smoking weed.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
3:41 pm
Lets let taxpayer, G, Midori, God Hates Trash and Brad Steale man the front line when we are invaded by China. At least that way we will get rid of unwanted problems.
G
March 17th, 2009
3:41 pm
The GOP and its supporters should be ashamed.
They rammed this war down our throats and screamed that liberals were anti-American and unpatriotic.
They told us over and over that we didn’t support the troops because we knew this war was wrong and Bush was incompetent.
They were wrong. And they have to live with it.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
3:44 pm
To G @3:21 pm – Conservatives love to point out that Democrats voted for this war, that they saw the intelligence, that even Clinton said they had weapons of destruction, but when all is said and done this is still Bush’s war. He and his Administration made the case to go and as Commander in Chief he sent our troops. It was a case of the blind leading the blind. They didn’t know or want to know the facts, made up facts to back their case, misjudged the out come, and left us holding the bag. But like some children when wrong is done they want to share the blame. They need to man up.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
3:44 pm
G,
your party ran the Vietnam war down Americas throat. You should be ashamed.
You were wrong and now you have to live with it. Hack.
Redneck Convert
March 17th, 2009
3:45 pm
You mean we are just suppose to leave without any oil at all? I mean, we went over there and hung this Saddam and others and then throwed a bunch in jail for them. We took power away from the Sunnys and give it to the Sh*ts. We spent close to a trillion bucks on them. We got 4200 of our boys kilt and 20000 or so maimed for life. Course, they wasn’t our boys and we didn’t know them, but still. And they want us out? And now they say they don’t like us to boot?
What a Commie country!
williebkind
March 17th, 2009
3:47 pm
BDAtlanta: Your comments surely convinced me you are not a southerner. My great grandparents were under martial law from 1865 to the 1880’s and lost all they owned including land. My grandparents talked about the hardships all the time and that info was passed down to each generation.
Angry Green Man
March 17th, 2009
3:48 pm
How about we kill two birds with one stone. Let’s send Madoff and the AIG execs over to Iraq to finish off the war. At the same time pull the combat troops out to Iraq’s borders and watch the melee commence. If those people are worth what they “earn”, they should be able to clean everything up no problem.
Joey
March 17th, 2009
3:49 pm
According to commondreams.org, I’ll be kind and call it a Progressive group, the U.S. in 2003 had “702 military bases in about 130 countries.” If ABC/BBC asked the same questions in those countries, I suspect the result would be close to the same.
It is my view that there are about 624 other bases we should close and 112 other countries we should retire from before we abandon Iraq to the hell that many of you wish upon it.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
3:55 pm
G,
when have I ever been judgemental? I just point out what it really is. Nope, I’ve never had a woman pay for an abortion. Keep making up stuff hack.
You have some major issues G. Don’t blame me for you problems.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
3:59 pm
To: williebkind
“You can see the liberal military dodgers in college or on this blog.”
You may have a point here but don’t forget to add Draft Dodgers Dick Chenny and Donald Rumsfield and AWOL George W. Bush (I know – no proof of GW’s absence but he sure didn’t go to Nam).
raisedanidiot
March 17th, 2009
4:03 pm
To dustball…I see that you and your ilk are the ones still beating that dead horse. Bookman is your boy, not ours. I’m quite confident now that Obama is in that we will soon be out, but that won’t undo all the pantywad that your daddy bush got us into. We’ll be sorting through this quagmire of kaka for years to come. Thanks for getting us in the doodoo in the first place, and now you’re btching about the clean up. You neocons never fail to amaze me.
Angry Black Man
March 17th, 2009
4:05 pm
If they want us gone, just leave. Let them kill themselves. That’s been going on for thousands of years and won’t stop anytime soon.
radiowxman
March 17th, 2009
4:08 pm
I guess the Obama administration has to give the previous one loads of credit. After all, despite the democrats desire for the Bush administration to fail, Iraq seems to have become a stable, (relatively) safe place to live.
Not only that, the Iraqi government seems to have a handle on the ethnic problems that have traditionally plagues the country. Wasn’t it our new VP who told us that the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds could never live together, and we’d be better off breaking up the country into thirds?
And hey, how about that Iraqi military? I guess General “Betray Us” Petraeus and his charges did a good job keeping the nation (relatively) safe and was able to train the Iraqi military and police to make the transition.
But wasn’t it Harry Reid who said the war was lost — even before the surge started? Weren’t the American soldiers compared to Pol Pot’s troops? Didn’t the honorable Mr. Kennedy call Iraq an impossible quagmire?
I wonder how all of this was able to change? Oh, I know. It must have been Obama’s speech in Germany. Or something like that. Couldn’t have been anything Bush and Co. did. We all know they’re a load of incompetent morons. Or sophisticated, Machiavellian manipulators. One of the two, I forget.
Regardless, Obama will move troops out of Iraq and take all the credit. And continue to blame Bush for the worsening domestic economy. And the usual suspects will lap it up.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
4:09 pm
raisedanidiot,
President Teleprompter ain’t bringing anyone home. Don’t know where you’ve been but he’s already said that he’s leaving 50,000 troops there and adding troops to Afghan. HA HA HA.
The Corporal
March 17th, 2009
4:09 pm
No one has answered my original question. What do you think the “go home” percentages were for Japanese and German citizens after WWII ?
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
4:10 pm
Angry Black Man,
yep. Nothing we can do will change their mentality.
radiowxman
March 17th, 2009
4:13 pm
Corporal: I’ll do you one better.
Polls say that an increasing number of South Koreans want the US military presence gone. Anyone think we should abandon the DMZ? Perhaps we could ask the South Korean leaders what they think.
Angry Black Man
March 17th, 2009
4:18 pm
Exactly Commie, that’s why I don’t subscribe to the pre-emptive strike ideology. I can’t just walk up to someone and give them a beatdown just because I think they are going to beat me. Now if you run up on me with your fist clenched and cocked back ready to swing, I’m gonna use every lesson I learned in defensive tactics and make you wish you had never done that. Fighting is a way of life in the Middle East. Once the world is nuked dead, the cockroaches over there will still be fighting.
raisedanidiot
March 17th, 2009
4:18 pm
Commie…as I already alluded to…we’ll be cleaning up after your halfwit daddy for years. It just amazes me that you guys like dustball can sht all over the floor then cry about how we clean it up…just makes me want to throw it in your face and tell you to lick it up.
@@
March 17th, 2009
4:22 pm
What the hell, jay, let’s just throw everyone BUT AFGHANISTAN under the bus. Obama’s good at those kinda decisions. The struggling democracies in Eastern Europe mean nothing to him.
Talabani has made public his intentions not to seek re-election. He was key to Iraqi Kurds. They haven’t suffered enough….let ‘em suffer a little more. They deserve it, right?
PJ
March 17th, 2009
4:25 pm
To: CommunistAJC @4:09 pm – What is so funny about your statement? Talk about not supporting the troops. Your kind only use the troops as a sword over our head when you want to call someones patriotism in question. When they’re of any use to the Republicans than they to be are saluted but when they are under a Democrats control they are the butt of your jokes. That’s sick my man
The Corporal
March 17th, 2009
4:27 pm
To radiowxman: GOOD ONE!
To All You Libs:
Here’s the bottom line. Why are you gripping at all of us conservatives?
If they want us out then we can leave. Is President Urkel deaf?
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 17th, 2009
4:29 pm
To Corporal:
My Daddy was in the occupation forces in Japan in 1946-47. He said that although things were for the most part peaceful you had to be careful because there was the occasional person now and then who would take a shot at you if they got the chance.
It isn’t very well known but as late as 1947 there were still isolated elements in both Japan and Germany who wanted to fight on. They had no popular support though because by that time the general population had seen all the suffering they cared to see.
Observer
March 17th, 2009
4:31 pm
I wonder when we’re going to get all the oil? This was a war for oil wasn’t it? I’m sure I remember someone making that claim after the war began. Now, who was that?
Let there Be Blood
March 17th, 2009
4:37 pm
PJ – How many terrorists killed? How many of those ‘civilians’ were terrorists, potential terrorists, mothers and fathers of future terrorists? And who killed all those ‘civilians’? If my math is right then there’s 150,000 down and 17 millionor so to go!
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
4:39 pm
PJ,
just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Thanks for playing.
raisedanidiot, when did Bush become my dad? My dad is a chemical engineer at GP. He’s MUCH more intelligent than W.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
4:40 pm
Jay
Got a music clip titled “turn out the lights, the party’s over”?
I have a theory why there still so much anti-Bush vitriol: it provides an out for coming to grips with the fact that Pres Obama will keep tens and tens and tens of thousands of servicemembers in Iraq for years and years and years.
Iraqis want us gone, but Obama’s not listening…
G or anyone – care to shift sights to Afghanistan? Ready to answer the same questions about Afg that you pummeled Iraq supporters with, like….
how do you define ‘victory’?
how do you know you’ve achieved it? and last but not least:
is Afg worth one more American life?
oldmac
March 17th, 2009
4:41 pm
What was the phrase again? Oh Yeah, “Mission Accomplished.”
NH
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
4:42 pm
The Corporal,
bottom line: Jay and the rest of the a$$ clowns on this blog know that President Teleprompter can’t bring the troops home.
I Report/ You Whine
March 17th, 2009
4:43 pm
When do you think Oblahmi will get the message?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha, bozos.
Let there Be Blood
March 17th, 2009
4:45 pm
Paul – Afghanistan is the key to keeping Pakistan out of Islamo-facist control, and the Paki’s have WMD’s. Of course, the Islamo-facists have just as much right as we do to have nuclear weapons. At least until they drop one on your house!
The Corporal
March 17th, 2009
4:46 pm
To Hillbilly Deluxe:
Exactly! Thank you.
And to all of you “fair weather” friends who let South Vietnam go down the tubes three years after our military left, if we had seen that through, the First Air Cavalry (or some unit) would still be near the 43 mile wide DMZ in that free country just like the 2nd Infantry Division is near the 250 mile wide DMZ today in that country.
But then there is no honor among wimps.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
4:46 pm
Commie I never joke about the troops nor do I personally know anyone who does. They are never a laughing matter even when playing a childish game like payback. They are too important and someones loved one.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
4:48 pm
PJ,
why are you targeting me? I never dissed the troops. You should ask the democrats why they despise the military so much.
oldmac
March 17th, 2009
4:48 pm
When is the weekly “how well we’re doing in the Pres. polls” brag blog coming? Maybe that other one was a bit premature?
MN
Paul
March 17th, 2009
4:57 pm
Let there be blood
[[Afghanistan is the key to keeping Pakistan out of Islamo-facist control]]
Why?
Taliban and AQ have a stronghold in Pak, not Afg. Pak gov’t has reached an accommodation with tribal leaders. But it begs the question: what’s the American strategy? How do we achieve it? Is it really a quagmire?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Dusty
March 17th, 2009
5:00 pm
Don’t mind raisedanidiot, folks.
She used to be here but left to sell stuffed alligators. Just because her vocabulary is straight out of the sewer should not affect her political status. She is a liberal.
Shine on, raised. There are a few more like you. They will show up soon and tell you how wonderful you are. This IS Bookman’s liberal home territory.
Pogo
March 17th, 2009
5:01 pm
We know the Iraqi’s don’t like us. We know no-one in the Middle East likes us. Never have, never will. We represent everything that they consider reprehensible (actually, there may be some justification for that notion). In their eyes we are seen as greedy, immoral, arrogant and we think that we deserve everything for nothing and damn the cost to everyone else for our wants. Hmmm. I think I just described our President, our Congress and a hell of a lot of people in our country. No wonder we are in trouble.
On another word,
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.
The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Dodd’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.
This country is in trouble people. People like Dodd, Frank and Pelosi are the people that you chose and continue to choose to bring about “change”. They are also the people that have been in leadership positions this whole time and who made the decisions which have brought us to the brink economically. And they are continuing to do it. They only alter their positions when it is obvious to Americans that their positions are wrong. There has to be something better out there for American’s to choose from than the two bloated, decadent, out of touch political parties we are forced to vote for and which take us all for granted for whatever reason (race, etc.). I think that this country desperately needs a strong Independent Party. If for nothing else to shake up the imbedded parasites in our government that have led us to this mess and who will destroy us if we don’t inact real change (not “Hollywood” change) soon.
Angry Black Man
March 17th, 2009
5:03 pm
There’s enough blame to go around to Dems and Repubs, Conservatives and Liberals. Regardless to how everyone feels, soldiers are putting their lives on the line for things we take for granted. If people stop pointing the finger at each other and work together for a common solution, maybe we wouldn’t have had 4000+ dead service members.
Once again I say, if the Iraqis want us to leave, fly C5’s in, pick up our people and equipment, and return to the western hemisphere. That fight there is never gonna end. If we’re going to rebuild the country, we should have just flattened with a few B52 sorties.
Angry Black Man
March 17th, 2009
5:07 pm
Oops, meant to say flattened Iraq. Sorry for the ommission
Copyleft
March 17th, 2009
5:07 pm
This has already been posted in two other threads, Pogo… and yes, Dodd made a mistake last month when offered to throw the AIG execs a bone in the form of leaving their bonuses alone.
The time for showing CEOs ANY level of mercy or respect is over.
As for Iraq: Well, we went there to establish democracy (Bush’s own words). Shouldn’t we heed the Voice of the People and leave their country now?
Paul
March 17th, 2009
5:08 pm
Pogo
They (Saudis, other Islamic regimes) represent everything that we consider reprehensible (actually, there may be some justification for that notion). In our eyes they are seen as greedy, immoral, arrogant and they think that they deserve everything for nothing and damn the cost to everyone else for their wants.
Amazing how we see ‘them’ the same way ‘they’ see us, isn’t it?
deegee
March 17th, 2009
5:09 pm
Please, Lord spare us from governance by people that evaluate every global conflict as though it were a game of cowboys and indians. Please, Lord keep us from electing unenlightened leaders that ignore history and the binds that tie ancient cultures, religions and civilizations. Please Lord, help them understand that what worked in colonial America in 1776 might not be a good model for resolving global conflict in 2009. Please, Lord.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
5:10 pm
Copyleft
[[Shouldn’t we heed the Voice of the People and leave their country now?]]
Darn good question for our President! As noted earlier, he has no plans to do so.
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
5:10 pm
The sooner we are out of Iraq, the better. Rumsfeld never should have done Reagan’s bidding and empowered Saddam to begin with. We need to wrap that mess up and get out.
Joey
March 17th, 2009
5:13 pm
To all of you Progressive Democrats, a few posters have already pointed this out, but one more reminder:
Democrats are in control. you can pass what ever legislation you want. Do it. But remember the piper will be paid.
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
5:14 pm
Mission Accomplished! Only if the mission was to destroy the US. In that case, Bush and company did a bang up job. Give the boys a cigar and a bonus.
Let there Be Blood
March 17th, 2009
5:16 pm
Paul – The objectives are pretty obvious, don’t let the Muslim extremists get nuclear weapons and keep Middle East oil flowing. Afg is much easier to occupy than Iran or Pakistan but is very important strategically due to location, nice place for semi-permanent bases. You did notice how quickly O’s foreign policy changed after he got a few high level briefings didn’t you? His illusion of singing ‘we are the world’ while making nice with Iran is gone. A few of the bloggers don’t seem to get it yet, but none of them would willing give up their car for more than a day.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
5:23 pm
Taxpayer
[[Rumsfeld never should have done Reagan’s bidding and empowered Saddam to begin with.]]
Please don’t tell me you think our national interests would have been served if Iran had defeated Iran…
Let there be blood
Only Moslem country with nukes is Pak. One can make a pretty good case that current (and by projection, Pres Obama’s future) policies in Afg, including spillover on the border, actually increases the chance of Pak destabilization and extremist ascension.
Who’d be hurt more by stopping the oil flow? Us? Japan? Western Europe? If all, then their troops are where?
Any indication of a perm presence will reinvigorate AQ – just read some of OBLs speeches about the return of the Crusaders –
Not many people walk into a quagmire with eyes open… but we have and I don’t see this administration doing anything much to change that.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
5:24 pm
Taxpayer
One little letter…
should have typed “Please don’t tell me you think our national interests would have been served if Iran had defeated Iraq…”
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
5:27 pm
The conservatives should feel free to go battle anyone that wants to fight with them, on their own dime and in their own names. Haul your buttocks over to Russia or Iran or North Korea or wherever and have at it. We are leaving Iraq and we have a schedule that the Iraqis agree with. So, you conservatives can go line up behind Cheney and do your little thing. Don’t let the screen door hit you.
Dusty
March 17th, 2009
5:28 pm
What’s with this “we hate Iraqis, Saudis and all in the MIdEast” and vice versa? I say that is not so. I don’t even think most of our troops think so. They know there are enemies and they know there are human beings with much the same feelings as ours.
No, I do not like terrorists of any kind. Homegrown ones that blew up the Fed Building that killed even little babies in the nursery are just as bad. No, I do not like terrorists.
I read the story of the Iraqi baby with spina bifida whose grandmother cared enough to get an army medic to see her little grandchild. And the US army understood the grandmother and the afflicted child and they sent them to America. They lived with an American family and doctors gave free surgery.
I would guess that the average Iraqi citizen wants what we already have, freedom to be ourselves and take care of our families.
Even as we fight our enemies, let us try to stay away from wholesale hate. It is too inhuman. Too devastating. The loss of value for human beings is too great a loss in which to endulge. Let anger be at injustice. Let our spirit not forget the spirit that lives in others. Sometimes it seems easier just to hate with vengence. Let us not do it.
I Report/ You Whine
March 17th, 2009
5:31 pm
This AIG scandal is a dream come true, this little monster is going to eat Oblahmi, no wonder Bookman wants to talk about boogeyman Iraq-
This much is clear: Washington could face two very difficult decisions in the months ahead if, as expected, AIG pleads for even more money.
It could say, “Hell, no” and risk the doomsday scenario coming true.
Or it could be forced to risk the wrath of an angry public and pump even more money into an uncertain bet to save AIG.
Not only that, you take the bonuses away, thee executives quit, go find another financial firm from whence they can bet against AIG’s schemes, making a ton of money and tearing AIG to shreds.
Either way, this one is going to end good, good for Republicans.
And all OneTerm had to do to avoid it; stfu.
buh bye
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
5:34 pm
Paul,
Please don’t tell me that you know how things would have turned out if we had not intervened or if we had not gone head to head against Russia. None of us know. The only thing we do know is what happened and then only what has been truthfully shared with us. Besides, what makes you think that Iran did not win in Iraq — it just took them a little longer.
@@
March 17th, 2009
5:46 pm
The liberals on this site can’t back down from Afghanistan. It’s what THEY pushed on Obama and HE, in turn, pushed in his campaign with EYES WIDE OPEN, I might add.
Liberals went into the campaign with their EYES SHUT to anything in the BUSH.
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
5:47 pm
Further,
The entire conservative (aka, Republican) policy of preemption is predicated on the belief that they are somehow Godly and that they can “see” what will happen if they don’t “crush, kill, destroy.” In short, this is yet another in a long list of reasons not to ever vote conservative (Republican). Of course, the conservatives (Republicans) should feel free to kill off themselves whenever they wish as long as it’s on their own dime.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
5:50 pm
Taxpayer
Russia? Who said anything about Russia? I was referring to your 5:10 “. Rumsfeld never should have done Reagan’s bidding and empowered Saddam to begin with.” We gave support to Iraq in their prolonged war with Iran. Killed hundreds of thousands, played havoc with the new Iranian revolutionary government and in general served our interests. Without our support to Iraq it could have ended much more badly for the Iraqis with the Iranians in ascension. Which is why we assisted Saddam in the first place.
CommunistAJC
March 17th, 2009
5:51 pm
Taxpayer,
you should be ashamed of yourself.
Eric
March 17th, 2009
5:53 pm
Well then, if everything is going well, it’s time to pull out. Tell me though–who actually won this so-called “war”?
Paul
March 17th, 2009
5:53 pm
Taxpayer
[[The entire conservative (aka, Republican) policy of preemption is predicated on the belief that they are somehow ]]
You may want to read up on preemption – at least as far as an element of American policy in the post-WWII world. Democrats, not just Republicans, embraced it without question.
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
6:07 pm
Paul,
Like I said, everything that you say would have happened or that did happen because of our action, etc., is opinion. To claim ahead of time that you knew what would happen is playing God. Preemption is playing God. I won’t buy into it now or ever. Further, are you bragging about the deaths of 100,000 people as though that were some accomplishment — in whose eyes. Gods?
Hmmmmm
March 17th, 2009
6:08 pm
I can hardly believe some of these “progressive Liberals” Completely SPINELESS, and they even think that their the smart ones…. If it wasn’t so absurd, it would be funny!
radiowxman
March 17th, 2009
6:14 pm
Taxpayer would prefer and wait to do something after Americans die. And by “do something,” it would be begging the United Nations to send a sternly worded letter to the offending party. And maybe a nice memorial.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
6:18 pm
Commie you made a joke that included the troops so yes I’m gonna call you out and anyone else that does that.
And to:Dusty @5:28 pm – I’m sure Iraqis and all the citizens of the world want freedom and security but let them do it on their own dime after all Iraq has a surplus of income we don’t.
The Corporal
March 17th, 2009
6:24 pm
To DeeGee:
You invoke “The Lord” a lot. The Bible teaches when He returns He will “smite the nations” ……… Hummmmmm …….. I want to see your post then.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
6:24 pm
To: Hmmmmm @6:08 pm – What????? Most conservatives don’t make much sense but your post has to be one of the most senseless. Please explain.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
6:28 pm
Taxpayer 6:07
You wrote of preemption as if it was an invention of modern Republican conservatives. That is not the case. It is not party-specific as far as American policy.
Whether you buy into it or not is nice on a personal level, but really, it is irrelevant as far as a discussion of American policy.
I’ve said nothing about ‘what might have happened.’ I’ve reflected on what did happen (Iraq and Iran fought each other to an essential stalemate. The new revolutionary government of Iran did not prevail, even though they had air superiority (American jets provided to the Shah). I’ve stated it is likely that may not have been the outcome, absent American aid to Saddam. I’ve also stated the results of the war – a weakened Iraq and a weakened Iran, which took them years to recover – served our interests. If that meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi military, then yes, that is a good thing insofar as it furthered our national objectives. That’s not bragging. It’s an assessment.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
6:29 pm
My previous post, paragraph one, sentence three, “It WAS not party-specific as far as American policy.”
Jay
March 17th, 2009
6:34 pm
The problem, Paul, is that the invasion of Iraq was not pre-emptive war, in the sense of attacking somebody first who was preparing to attack us. As you say, most Americans throughout history would accept that as necessary and justified. But that wasn’t Iraq.
This was preventive war, attacking somebody just in case they might someday decide to attack us. That’s a whole different standard. If preventive war becomes OK, you can justify attacking anybody at any time, and they can do the same to us. That has NOT been the standard of American behavior.
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
6:35 pm
In case no else knows this, we did not strike preemptively in WWII. Also, when the terrorists took out the WTCs, we did the right thing initially by going into Afghanistan after Al Queda and those that harbored them. We went down hill after that and that is when I lost all remaining faith in Bush’s (aka Cheney’s, et al) policies.
Further, radiowxman, in case you did not notice, Bush waited until AFTER people died to do something and we did put up a nice memorial. I’m talking about preemption (based on using one’s assumptions of what will happen if we do not take action or similar scenarios) and how utterly wrong it is. Of course, other people are entitled to their opinions just as much as I am entitled to mine.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
6:37 pm
Taxpayer
Look at it this way (regarding personal values when discussing national and international events).
In the late 1930s Joseph Stalin, dictator of the USSR, purged the top echelons of his military. Nearly wiped them out. Now, suppose Hitler’s Germany had viewed that as an opportunity and attacked east early and continued east. No pause with an invasion west into Holland, France, etc, drawing in the British. Hitler and Stalin bog down, exhaust each other. Literally millions of their military die as other nations provide material to keep the battles going. But Germany and Russia have exhausted themselves and are unable to expand military operations elsewhere.
Would that have been a ‘good’ thing?
radiowxman
March 17th, 2009
6:39 pm
Jay is right.
It wasn’t pre-emptive war.
It was a continuation of the first Gulf War. As I’m sure you all recall, Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire agreement. That cease fire agreement came with many terms that Saddam agreed to.
Saddam flaunted and broke the terms of the cease fire numerous times between 1991 and 2003, thereby opening himself up for a resumption of hostilities.
radiowxman
March 17th, 2009
6:43 pm
Taxpayer — so I assume that you then applaud Bush’s activities? After all, he and his predecessor did not pre-emptively take out the leaders of Al Qaeda. Wouldn’t want to ruffle any feathers or violate one’s civil liberties.
We didn’t strike preemptively in WW2? I guess the Flying Tigers don’t count.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
6:46 pm
Paul supposition (suppose Hitler) and what ifs are what you are now stating. These terms are good in math and science and academics but these are never good reasons to start a war, ever.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
6:47 pm
Jay
Of course it wasn’t. I did not mention the US invasion of Iraq in this discussion with Taxpayer – what triggered this entire discussion was Taxpayer’s 5:47 that preemption is a conservative Republican policy. It may have been so recently, but my point was it’s been around for decades (but was largely written out until the Bush administration made some noise about it). If one wants to argue that the Bush Administration used it as one of many justifications to invade Iraq, I will not argue otherwise. I think the record’s pretty clear.
That’s a nice illustration of preventive war – many people use ‘preemptive’ and ‘preventive’ synonymously. They are not. And you are correct. “Just in case” war isn’t an American tradition.
Taxpayer 6:35
I do agree our initial response (measured in weeks) was correct in Afghanistan. But then we had the Pentagon power play vs CIA, we went pretty much standard military, lost ground in the areas we’re now trying to make up and generally haven’t been all that quick to regroup, reevaluate and change course.
Which is why I have a continuing uneasy feeling about Afghanistan. And Pakistan.
PJ
March 17th, 2009
6:50 pm
To: radiowxman @6:39 pm – If the war was a continuation then that’s what we should have been told. We were told WMDs and an emanate threat were the reasons.
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
6:50 pm
Paul,
I write of preemption in the way that I see it being used. Bush defined an axis of evil as though he had some insight into what these countries were going to do and that was just for openers. It has been downhill since then. If you claim that the word has some specific meaning that dates back to the beginning of time or whatever, then so be it. I’m not playing semantics here. I’m simply calling it the way I see it and using the definition of preemption that Webster recognizes.
As for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to make yourself feel a little safer for a few more years, we’ll necessarily have to differ. I’ll take my chances with whatever comes my way but I will NEVER agree with you or anyone else that we should take preemptive action, per my use of the word, against others. If an obviously rabid animal is coming after me, then I will take it down if I can before it bites me. But, if an seemingly safe animal is just approaching me, I will not preemptively kill it because I think it may attack as soon as it gets close enough.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
6:53 pm
PJ
[[These terms are good in math and science and academics but these are never good reasons to start a war, ever.]]
The example was not to provide a justification for war. The example was to illustrate if you take two adversaries who may be future adversaries of a third party (WWII – Russia and Germany vs the West; the 80s, Iraq and Iran vs US) and it turns out they weaken themselves fighting each other so any future conflicts vs the West or US are delayed or eliminated, that’s a good thing.
It was given in context of one reason Reagan supported Iraq in their war against Iran (the guys who just a year or so before kept our diplomats as hostages for over a year) and we have that oft-cited photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. It’s often cited as a measure of Reagan’s and Rumsfeld’s stupidity. I think otherwise.
I Report/ You Whine
March 17th, 2009
6:54 pm
The problem, Paul, is that the invasion of Iraq was not pre-emptive war, in the sense of attacking somebody first who was preparing to attack us.
Oh yeah, and a suitcase nuke exploded in New York City would have been what?
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s ———->nuclear<———, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.-Billy Klintoon
Sore losers
Taxpayer
March 17th, 2009
6:56 pm
radiowxman,
the flying tigers were a volunteer unit in the Chinese military. At least, that is what I have read.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
6:59 pm
Taxpayer 6:50
Fair enough. I didn’t mean it as a semantics issue – I tried to show this wasn’t some idea hatched out of nothing by the Bush Administration. The elements of preemption have danced in and out of American policy for decades. Was it used by the Bush Administration? Sure – but it wasn’t anything new.
Again, I do not think I justified preemption. I noted it’s been a fact. The example I gave with Iraq-Iran and Germany-Russia was not preemptive on our part. It showed that having two adversaries weaken themselves may have the effect of lessening our future risk – which, if it’s a conflict averted, saves American soldier’s lives. If that comes at the cost of the deaths of the soldiers of our adversaries while they fight amongst themselves, well, that’s the price they pay.
RW-(the original)
March 17th, 2009
6:59 pm
Don’t you just know that Jay B would have been whining for the last 8 years if we had taken out the Taliban before 9/11 about us entering a preventative war? He would either be telling us incessantly that the attacks on 9/11 were because of our invasion or if they didn’t happen he would tell us there had been nothing to preempt. Of course carrying this alternate reality a step further we would also probably be told that the “real” problem was in Iraq and Bush was ignoring it.
Of course during the 9/11 hearings we had Democrats saying that was exactly what President Bush should have done.
Paul
March 17th, 2009
7:02 pm
Taxpayer – radiowxman
Yes, they were volunteers. For the Chinese. With US gov’t support. We also had huge ongoing support of the British before we finally became involved in WWII (and after the Japanese attacked us, where did we turn the bulk of our effort? Right – Europe).
Many have written Pres Roosevelt was determined to get us involved in war in Europe. It may not be preemption, but….
PJ
March 17th, 2009
7:05 pm
To: I Report/ You Whine @6:54 pm – Who is Billy Klintoon and why are you quoting him. A quote is supposed to be attributed to the real speaker (writer) of it and not as a joke if you want to be taken seriously.