The RSR Polls.

[TheStripey1]

I think it is instructive to consider how the right frames this debate about the wisdom of our continued involvement in the affairs of the Iraqi people. There is a constantly shifting definition of "winning", and, therefore, and equally shifting definition of "being defeated". At its very essence is the idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must "win" against them there or they will have "defeated" us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some gobal football game and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. The enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. In that war, we "win" when America's social and economic interest is felt in the world and those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view.... we want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century. Is it really sensible to chose Iraq as the hill upon which we will die this decade? Can't we admit that we made an error in elevating Iraq into some symbolic preeminence that it does not deserve? Our war is against Islamic extremism... and that war will not be won militarily, but socially, politically, and most importantly, economically. Our war is not against Iraqi insurgents who really want to fight one another in a turf battle for oil and a 1200 year old grudge match over islamic interpretation and ascendancy.

Those of us on here with a military background know full well that, in the major wars that engulfed our planet in the last century, America lost its share of BATTLES...America retreated from individual battlefields when it became clear that continuing to fight on that spot was not helping us win the larger victory.... when it became clear that that was not the hill we should chose to die on.... but America prevailed in those large wars because we did NOT let ourselves become obsessed with winning any one battle at the expense of overall victory.

I am all for fighting and winning the war against Islamic extremism. I know full well that our military will play a role at times in that war, but that ideas and economics will play a greater role. From the very outset, I have been against the action in Iraq, not because I didn't want to fight and win the war against Islamic extremism, but because I did not believe that our planned action in Iraq advanced our cause in that larger war.

Saddam Hussein was an asshole.... but he was an unwitting ally of ours in our war against Islamic extremism. The vision of Islamic extremists had no place for secular nation states like Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia OR IRAQ. Saddam had no vested interest in promoting an ideology that was bent on his own destruction.

Saddam was an asshole, but he did three things very well - three things that we would LOVE for someone to be doing better than we are doing them today: 1. he kept islamic extremists from gaining bases of operation in Iraq (and don't start with me about Saddam's support for terrorists - his support was solely for NATIONALIST terror organizations and, as repugnant as they were and are, they are not the same as the Islamic extremists that threaten us) 2. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse in a country that was unique in its mixed population of shiites and sunnis at the edge of arabia and persia.... and 3. he acted as a foil against Iranian regional hegemony.

We need to admit that we will NEVER be able to do those three things as well as Saddam did them and that we fucked up by removing him from power and forcing ourselves to occupy a large portion of our military, our economy, and our diplomatic energy in trying to keep Iraq from boiling over when we could much more effectively use those assets to our benefit elsewhere in the world. No one wants DEFEAT in the war on Islamic extremism, but I think we should consider leaving the battlefield we created in Iraq and focusing our efforts on winning the war that we should be fighting.

well said, maineman, well said

 

[maineman]

well said, maineman, well said

thank you. I am really quite interested in hearing not only RSR's answers to the poll questions from his own thread, but also his thoughts on my answers and on the post you just referenced.

I hope I get to hear those answers and thoughts soon.

But my grandpa always said, "hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up faster"

 

[TheStripey1]

RSR was throwing this very poll around on multiple threads to "Prove" his point, and I found the questions partisan and leading, so I posted them here to see what peoples had to say.

The very reason I started this thread, IMO - Polls are only useful to strippers, and Firefighters.

silly super... those are poles not polls...

 

[TheStripey1]

Im waiting for RSR's response the most.

don't hold your breath...

 

[TheStripey1]

A little bit of both.


Speculative?

ooops... picture a red faced tiger... but hey, I'm new here... ok if I call you "super"?

 

[TheStripey1]

thank you. I am really quite interested in hearing not only RSR's answers to the poll questions from his own thread, but also his thoughts on my answers and on the post you just referenced.

I hope I get to hear those answers and thoughts soon.

But my grandpa always said, "hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up faster"

my grandaddy used to say the same thing.... was your grandaddy in the army during WWII?

 

[maineman]

my grandaddy used to say the same thing.... was your grandaddy in the army during WWII?

my granddaddy was born in the back of a covered wagon in the Oklahoma land rush in 1889 and served in WWI. (born in a covered wagon and lived to see man walk on the moon!)

My dad served in WWII!

 

[TheStripey1]

my granddaddy was born in the back of a covered wagon in the Oklahoma land rush in 1889 and served in WWI. (born in a covered wagon and lived to see man walk on the moon!)

My dad served in WWII!

cool beans, maineman...

Both my daddy and grandaddy (maternal) served in WWII... and ol' grandad picked up a few pieces of german shrapnel during the Anzio invasion... my dad was AAF stationed in England with a B-26 Flying Marauder squadron in one of their ground crews...

 

[Superlative]

ooops... picture a red faced tiger... but hey, I'm new here... ok if I call you "super"?

Sure, you can call me super, just dont call me late for dinner!

 

[maineman]

Hey...RSR...here is a novel idea:

why don't you read post #6 and #25 in this thread and try to string oh, let's say, 50 words of your own to answer them?

that is what we quaintly refer to as "debate". care to try?

 

[maineman]

avoiding this one, eh?

#6...#25.... respond.


go ahead, try your hand at real debating for once!

 

[red states rule]

avoiding this one, eh?

#6...#25.... respond.


go ahead, try your hand at real debating for once!

I have answered those same questions many times

Why not admit the poll nailed Dems to the wall?

 

[maineman]

and who would have predicted THAT terse response?

 

[red states rule]

and who would have predicted THAT terse response?

Maybe because its true?

 

[maineman]

I rest my case.

Let others judge how well you have responded to the questions and comments in post #6 and #25 that I took a fair amount of time to write.


You say you have. I say you haven't and you won't and you can't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about your responses to those posts and let others judge.

 

[Bern80]

1. How important is Victory in Iraq?

It depends on what "victory" means. Does it mean disarming Saddam of his terrible stockpiles of WMD's and punishing him for his connections to 9/11? Does it mean beaming like a proud parent as a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoms on the banks of the Euphrates with our gentle tutelage? Does it mean convincing sunnis and shiites to put aside centuries of hatred, link arms and sing a chorus of Kumbaya in the middle of George Bush Memorial Square in downtown Baghdad? The definition of victory has evolved as Bush's house-of-cards-like foreign policy has crumbled. I say, when the Iraqis can put trained troops in the field that are equal in number to that "handful of deadenders in their final throes", that should be good enough for Americans to say sayonara and tell the Iraqis that we are fucking DONE shedding OUR blood for THEIR freedoms.

Come on you guys you can quit the spin game, with "well what is 'victory'". We all know how vicotry is defined as far as Iraq is concerned. Victory is the achievement of a free, self-sustaining country.

2. How hopeful are you that the US will succeed in Iraq?

Very Hopeful.... but hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

Do I predict "success"? no....unless Bush redefines "success" yet again to the point where "success" means "no thermonuclear explosions in Badhdad or Anbar" or something equally achievable.

I have a new theory on this one. Has any stopped to consider that achieving a self-sustaining, relatively violence free Iraq in 3+ yrs time just isn't that realistic even if by some miracle we were able to get everything right?

That expectation that if Bush had done things right or anybody had done things right, that Iraq would just be great by now is a silly one more reflection of America as an instant gratification society than anything else.

3. Who would you like to see the president rely on for advice on the conduct of war?

A Congress
B Field commanders?

B.

same

4.Which of the following must be a higher priority for the US?

A. Winning in Iraq?
B. Immediate Troop withdrawal?

see question #1 and #2 above.

See response to his response above

5. Would you agree the War is lost in Iraq

we won the war...we lost the occupation and we did that because we sent our military to do what diplomats should have done all along. Militaries are not designed to be peacekeeping forces and public relations ombudsmen...they are designed to destroy the enemy and capture territory. We did that part. Time to let the diplomats and administration PR types do the rest and get our troops out of the middle of a shooting gallery.

Based on all current information, no I would not agree with that.

I don't agree with it also because I simply don't trust our news sources as far as Iraq is concerned in that I don't think any of us have any real idea what is going on, on a day to day basis there.

Just keep track of the headlines that you see on MSN or yahoo everyday. It's never anything but 8 dead here or 7 dead there. You want me to believe that's all that's going on?

6. Would you agree the US is fighting a global war on Terror?

no. but I would agree that we OUGHT to be instead of fucking around in Iraq.

Of course we are fighting a global war on terror. Who do you think we're fightin in Iraq. the sunnis? the shiites? Hell no. We are fighting Al Queda there because they have an obvious interest in an unstable Iraq.

And even amidst all that we have been able to foil attacks not related to Iraq, most recently at Fort Dicks

7. Would you agree that any proposal to repeal congressional authorization for the Iraq war, sends the wrong message to the troops?

no. the "troops" go and do what the suits in DC tell them to do and they do it until told to stop. The only cogent message we send our troops is: "your mission is _________. go do it."[?QUOTE]

It depends, in the particular case of the bill that recently passed, this was nothing more than politcal posturing by the dems. If they wanted to end the troop occupation of Iraq all they have to do is not fund the war. But their too chicken shit to do that.

8.Would you agree that setting a deadline for troop withdrawal is setting a deadline for failure?


absolutely not. Setting a deadline puts the Iraqis on notice that they need to start standing up because they KNOW when they will have to be fully erect.

How can you honestly believe that. You have said yourself above the occupation is lost. That being the case, how can us leaving not be a recipe for disaster

9. How important is stabilizing the situation in Iraq before we begin withdrawing the troops?

not our problem. Most of the Iraqi troops have been in training longer than the American first enlistment soldiers dying for their country.... play time is over...time to get to work Abdul

We made it our problem by invading. Whether you agree with our use of oil or not, currently we still have a very vested interest in at the the very least a relatively stable middle east.

 

[maineman]

Come on you guys you can quit the spin game, with "well what is 'victory'". We all know how vicotry is defined as far as Iraq is concerned. Victory is the achievement of a free, self-sustaining country.
was America free and self sustaining between the years 1861 and 1865?


I have a new theory on this one. Has any stopped to consider that achieving a self-sustaining, relatively violence free Iraq in 3+ yrs time just isn't that realistic even if by some miracle we were able to get everything right?
"RELATIVELY violence free? LOL. Declare victory today in that case. "relative' to all sorts of other conflicts in the history of mankind, Iraq is "relatively violence free" now! What is "relatively violence free" reached? I'll tell you when it is reached. When Dubya says it is and that date will be politically driven, not militarily.
That expectation that if Bush had done things right or anybody had done things right, that Iraq would just be great by now is a silly one more reflection of America as an instant gratification society than anything else.

I would never suggest that anything we could have done would have made Iraq "great". I would suggest that making things in Iraq "great" is none of our fucking concern. I don't see us pumping 150K troops and a trillion dollars into Darfur to make IT great. Iraq was NOT a battlefield in the war on islamic extremism until we fucked up and invaded it




Based on all current information, no I would not agree with that.
and I disagree with you. surprise surprise.

I don't agree with it also because I simply don't trust our news sources as far as Iraq is concerned in that I don't think any of us have any real idea what is going on, on a day to day basis there.

Just keep track of the headlines that you see on MSN or yahoo everyday. It's never anything but 8 dead here or 7 dead there. You want me to believe that's all that's going on?

if it bleeds it leads. do you really think that american troops rebuilding a power plant for the tenth time or painting a school or helping a fucking kitten out of a tree is as indicative of success in Iraq as the carnage is indicative of our failure?



Of course we are fighting a global war on terror. Who do you think we're fightin in Iraq. the sunnis? the shiites? Hell no. We are fighting Al Queda there because they have an obvious interest in an unstable Iraq.

odd. sunnis and shiites are killing US. do you really believe that American casualties are at the hands of Al Qaeda exclusively, or even predominantly? get a clue.

And even amidst all that we have been able to foil attacks not related to Iraq, most recently at Fort Dicks
yeah...we are really safe here at home. the money we flush down the shitter in Iraq could NEVER be better spent here at home improving our borders and our ports. whatever.


How can you honestly believe that. You have said yourself above the occupation is lost. That being the case, how can us leaving not be a recipe for disaster

our leaving is a recipe for civil war. Our leaving in 2020 will be a recipe for civil war. Do you honestly think that this terribly incompatible mixture of sunnis and shiites sitting on the cusp between arabia and persia will ever be able to get along?



We made it our problem by invading. Whether you agree with our use of oil or not, currently we still have a very vested interest in at the the very least a relatively stable middle east.
and I believe that our presence in Iraq contributes to the long term INSTABILITY of the middle east

 

[Bern80]

Come on you guys you can quit the spin game, with "well what is 'victory'". We all know how vicotry is defined as far as Iraq is concerned. Victory is the achievement of a free, self-sustaining country.
was America free and self sustaining between the years 1861 and 1865?

No, whats your point exactley?

I have a new theory on this one. Has any stopped to consider that achieving a self-sustaining, relatively violence free Iraq in 3+ yrs time just isn't that realistic even if by some miracle we were able to get everything right?
"RELATIVELY violence free? LOL. Declare victory today in that case. "relative' to all sorts of other conflicts in the history of mankind, Iraq is "relatively violence free" now! What is "relatively violence free" reached? I'll tell you when it is reached. When Dubya says it is and that date will be politically driven, not militarily.

Your not even willing to attempt to understand people are you?

That expectation that if Bush had done things right or anybody had done things right, that Iraq would just be great by now is a silly one more reflection of America as an instant gratification society than anything else.

I would never suggest that anything we could have done would have made Iraq "great". I would suggest that making things in Iraq "great" is none of our fucking concern.

As I suggested below a stable Iraq is very much our concern.

I don't see us pumping 150K troops and a trillion dollars into Darfur to make IT great. Iraq was NOT a battlefield in the war on islamic extremism until we fucked up and invaded it

America as a nation doesn't have a vested interest in the stability of Darfur.

Based on all current information, no I would not agree with that.
and I disagree with you. surprise surprise.

Try reading ahead before making stupid comments.

I don't agree with it also because I simply don't trust our news sources as far as Iraq is concerned in that I don't think any of us have any real idea what is going on, on a day to day basis there.

Just keep track of the headlines that you see on MSN or yahoo everyday. It's never anything but 8 dead here or 7 dead there. You want me to believe that's all that's going on?

if it bleeds it leads. do you really think that american troops rebuilding a power plant for the tenth time or painting a school or helping a fucking kitten out of a tree is as indicative of success in Iraq as the carnage is indicative of our failure?

as you said earlier, there is 'relatively' little 'carnage'

you can't tell me that there is absolutely no progress of any type being made. that is the number one complaint of the troops when they come home. To them it is like our media is reporting on a completely different war.

Of course we are fighting a global war on terror. Who do you think we're fightin in Iraq. the sunnis? the shiites? Hell no. We are fighting Al Queda there because they have an obvious interest in an unstable Iraq.

odd. sunnis and shiites are killing US. do you really believe that American casualties are at the hands of Al Qaeda exclusively, or even predominantly? get a clue.

You first

And even amidst all that we have been able to foil attacks not related to Iraq, most recently at Fort Dicks
yeah...we are really safe here at home. the money we flush down the shitter in Iraq could NEVER be better spent here at home improving our borders and our ports. whatever.

and yet amazingly there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

How can you honestly believe that. You have said yourself above the occupation is lost. That being the case, how can us leaving not be a recipe for disaster

our leaving is a recipe for civil war.

not a disaster by your definition then huh?

Our leaving in 2020 will be a recipe for civil war. Do you honestly think that this terribly incompatible mixture of sunnis and shiites sitting on the cusp between arabia and persia will ever be able to get along?

We don't need them to like each other. We need them to not kill each other. there's a difference

We made it our problem by invading. Whether you agree with our use of oil or not, currently we still have a very vested interest in at the the very least a relatively stable middle east.
and I believe that our presence in Iraq contributes to the long term INSTABILITY of the middle east

that directly contradicts you last point. If we leave there will be a civil war (instability)you said. Yet if we don't leave there will be instability?

 

[maineman]

cool beans, maineman...

Both my daddy and grandaddy (maternal) served in WWII... and ol' grandad picked up a few pieces of german shrapnel during the Anzio invasion... my dad was AAF stationed in England with a B-26 Flying Marauder squadron in one of their ground crews...

my father was a briefer for one of those squadrons. our fathers may very well have known one another.

 

[maineman]

No, whats your point exactley?
Iraq will have a civil war, regardless of when we leave

Your not even willing to attempt to understand people are you?

I disagree

As I suggested below a stable Iraq is very much our concern.

so is single handedly reversing global warming. That doesn't mean that a stable Iraq is anything WE can create long term

America as a nation doesn't have a vested interest in the stability of Darfur.
America, as a nation, does not have the ability to create long term stability in Iraq, regardless of how many men we sacrifice trying

Try reading ahead before making stupid comments.
your opinion. you think it's stupid, I think it's slightly droll.

as you said earlier, there is 'relatively' little 'carnage'
relatively? great. let's go home then.

you can't tell me that there is absolutely no progress of any type being made. that is the number one complaint of the troops when they come home. To them it is like our media is reporting on a completely different war.
nor have I ever tried to make such an assertion. I assert that Iraq, as a nation, is an unnatural and artificial european construct which forces together two groups of people that have no business or interest in peacefully co-existing

You first
I'm rubber, you're glue

and yet amazingly there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

that is but a blink of an eye in the long term view of islamic extremism. We are a fast food, immediate gratification nation. Islamic extremism is not. No one attacked our homeland between WTC 93 and 9/11. I bet you felt "relatively" safe then. Didn't you?

not a disaster by your definition then huh?
just nothing we can control, no matter how much blood we spill there.

We don't need them to like each other. We need them to not kill each other. there's a difference

you have not spent much time around sunnis and shiites, have you. THEY FUCKING HATE EACH OTHER!!!!!

that directly contradicts you last point. If we leave there will be a civil war (instability)you said. Yet if we don't leave there will be instability?

there is a difference between stability in Iraq and stability in the middle east. Iraq will either fall under the control of an autocratic dictator or it will divide. either way there will be carnage until both sides have had their fill. That conclusion was written in ink the day we toppled Saddam and did not immediately replace him with another strongman sympathetic to our interests.