Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Although President Bush doesn't come out to Iraq to man a turret during a patrol, he does come out here and gives encouragement and support at forward operating bases, and is in overall control of the U.S operations in Iraq, which in my opinion, proves that he believes in the mission. This is alot more than can be said about the Al Qaeda leader who has sold out, and fled into hiding.

I'd wager a guess that if OBL had half the security detail that W enjoys, he'd be seen more frequently.

Here he compared Bush to OBL.

Mr. Dog, I get your point. I think OBL has plenty of security, but not enough to stop us from splattering him if he made his exact location known. Fair enough.

There is no reason to compare the two though. It's useless.

The bold part is my point exactly. So I must ask: Why did you?

Here he says, he makes his point by not comparing the two. (THE BOLD PART) When he already did.The, "So, I must ask you" drew you away from the hypocracy.

Matt, you just got spun.

Not really, Marc, there is no point in comparing the President to a terrorist leader.

Edited October 9, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Dan J 277]

Matt, you just got spun.

Not really, Marc, there is no point in comparing the President to a terrorist leader.

I still believe that the GWOT is effective at destroying and disabling the business of terrorism. Terrorists no longer have a comfort zone to prepare, therefore attacks are less effective. AQ is running out of options, losing supporters, losing funds, and losing leaders. It's good progress that is being made. Withdrawing would reverse all the good that has been done here.

I don't believe any of the ####### about AQ being fueled by our presence in Iraq. I think the talks of withdrawing is what is really fueling them.

Keep telling yourself that. A terrorist organization can adapt and change its tactics much faster than the military does. As long as its cause remains valid and there are people willing to support them, they will always be a threat.

Don't forget, AQ never operated in Iraq until we got there.

You cant destroy an idea with bullets. You need to use better ideas. Public Diplomacy will be the end to AQ, military action only strengthens it.

to the

Hasn't AQ already proved that they will not negotiate diplomatically? How do you approach a group using a tactic that they are totally against?

If the military pulls out, Iraqis will have no way of preventing violence from consuming their country. We have a responsibility to prevent that from happening, no?

Terrorism is an action. An action is performed by a being. A being can be shot.

Do you know what public diplomacy means? Its not a bunch of leaders getting in a room talking things out. Its changing perspectives and opinions with informations and actions that improve the lives of those you are trying to influence. Because we have done very little good public diplomacy, many groups are feeding on the distrust and anger towards the Americans.

Killing innocent people (Even if you can justify it as part of the cost of war) = Bad for public diplomacy. Responding with aid to earthquakes (like we did in Pakistan) or bringing an Iraqi child to the US to get burn treatment = good for public diplomacy.

There is no solution that will not result in many Iraqis loosing their lives. Even though we are there, they still do everyday. And if we stay there, it will likely continue that way for the next decade or two and at a cost of Trillions to the taxpayers. Or leave and let them resolve their differences as they wish. Maybe in the end they will be able to reconcile their differences, or otherwise, form 3 separate countries. Or maybe us leaving will give the insurgents no one to fight, and bring them political arena and bring an end to the violence.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Matt, you just got spun.

Not really, Marc, there is no point in comparing the President to a terrorist leader.

I still believe that the GWOT is effective at destroying and disabling the business of terrorism. Terrorists no longer have a comfort zone to prepare, therefore attacks are less effective. AQ is running out of options, losing supporters, losing funds, and losing leaders. It's good progress that is being made. Withdrawing would reverse all the good that has been done here.

I don't believe any of the ####### about AQ being fueled by our presence in Iraq. I think the talks of withdrawing is what is really fueling them.

Keep telling yourself that. A terrorist organization can adapt and change its tactics much faster than the military does. As long as its cause remains valid and there are people willing to support them, they will always be a threat.

Don't forget, AQ never operated in Iraq until we got there.

You cant destroy an idea with bullets. You need to use better ideas. Public Diplomacy will be the end to AQ, military action only strengthens it.

to the

Hasn't AQ already proved that they will not negotiate diplomatically? How do you approach a group using a tactic that they are totally against?

If the military pulls out, Iraqis will have no way of preventing violence from consuming their country. We have a responsibility to prevent that from happening, no?

Terrorism is an action. An action is performed by a being. A being can be shot.

Do you know what public diplomacy means? Its not a bunch of leaders getting in a room talking things out. Its changing perspectives and opinions with informations and actions that improve the lives of those you are trying to influence. Because we have done very little good public diplomacy, many groups are feeding on the distrust and anger towards the Americans.

Killing innocent people (Even if you can justify it as part of the cost of war) = Bad for public diplomacy. Responding with aid to earthquakes (like we did in Pakistan) or bringing an Iraqi child to the US to get burn treatment = good for public diplomacy.

There is no solution that will not result in many Iraqis loosing their lives. Even though we are there, they still do everyday. And if we stay there, it will likely continue that way for the next decade or two and at a cost of Trillions to the taxpayers. Or leave and let them resolve their differences as they wish . Maybe in the end they will be able to reconcile their differences, or otherwise, form 3 separate countries. Or maybe us leaving will give the insurgents no one to fight, and bring them political arena and bring an end to the violence.

Do you know a diplomatic terrorist? If you do, please give us their location so your idea becomes reality.

This Group you talk of. Are they of the democrat persuation? define the difference,please.

[NavarreMan 10]

If the opposite of losing is having a more stable government and better security then what they had before we invaded them is much closer to the opposite of your definition of losing than what they have now.

I find it interesting that a person who favors isolationism the way you do feels a "favorable outcome to the USA" is more important than a favorable outcome to the country we destroyed. If we had better immigration policies and practices and concentrated more on protecting our borders why concern ourselves with the chaos we have created in the middle east? What difference does it make to you if they blow each other up? Isn't that actually furthering your cause?

The main man we're after is not in Iraq. What are you trying to prevent in Iraq? Them killing each other? Them killing us? What is the goal as you see it?

Your arguments just don't make sense to me.

Personally I think we lost this war when we decided we needed to be civilized about it. And when we didn't stay focused.

How did you get the idea I am an isolationist? You must be confusing me with someone else. It makes a great deal of difference to me if they "blow themselves up". We have an obligation to them to finish what we started. To not finish it would be a disservice to them and dangerous to us. To suggest that letting them sink to a bloodbath is furthering my cause is just your weak attempt to insult me.

I got that idea by reading your posts re: immigration. I got the idea by your statement "favorable outcome to the USA".

As far as insulting people, what exactly was your purpose and initiating this thread? It is obvious that the poll you quote is extremely biased and poorly conducted and worded. Why don't you start a poll here and ask us how we feel about the war? Who knows, maybe the results will surprise me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Although President Bush doesn't come out to Iraq to man a turret during a patrol, he does come out here and gives encouragement and support at forward operating bases, and is in overall control of the U.S operations in Iraq, which in my opinion, proves that he believes in the mission. This is alot more than can be said about the Al Qaeda leader who has sold out, and fled into hiding.

I'd wager a guess that if OBL had half the security detail that W enjoys, he'd be seen more frequently.

Here he compared Bush to OBL.

While you managed to quote it here, you apparently still did not bother the read the statement I responded to. That entire statement is where Matt uselessly (as anyone can see and by his own later admission) compares the two. I just called him on that nonsense. He's got it but it still seems to evade you, my friend.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

Just saw this thread. Wow apparently this is another indication of how 'pro-American' so many Democrats are. I don't think I have ever heard, in any other nation, how much someone wanted their country to lose a war. Even the most anti-American believer abroad would laugh at this one. Democrats, time to take your party back from the weirdos who have hijacked it.

PS For those who say don't call me anti-American. I have seen exactly how 'pro-American' certain party members have been since the 70's.. The examples of patriotism are overwhelming..

eg

Edited October 9, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

Some Democrats might as well start wearing these

[GaryC 7]

If the opposite of losing is having a more stable government and better security then what they had before we invaded them is much closer to the opposite of your definition of losing than what they have now.

I find it interesting that a person who favors isolationism the way you do feels a "favorable outcome to the USA" is more important than a favorable outcome to the country we destroyed. If we had better immigration policies and practices and concentrated more on protecting our borders why concern ourselves with the chaos we have created in the middle east? What difference does it make to you if they blow each other up? Isn't that actually furthering your cause?

The main man we're after is not in Iraq. What are you trying to prevent in Iraq? Them killing each other? Them killing us? What is the goal as you see it?

Your arguments just don't make sense to me.

Personally I think we lost this war when we decided we needed to be civilized about it. And when we didn't stay focused.

How did you get the idea I am an isolationist? You must be confusing me with someone else. It makes a great deal of difference to me if they "blow themselves up". We have an obligation to them to finish what we started. To not finish it would be a disservice to them and dangerous to us. To suggest that letting them sink to a bloodbath is furthering my cause is just your weak attempt to insult me.

I got that idea by reading your posts re: immigration. I got the idea by your statement "favorable outcome to the USA".

As far as insulting people, what exactly was your purpose and initiating this thread? It is obvious that the poll you quote is extremely biased and poorly conducted and worded. Why don't you start a poll here and ask us how we feel about the war? Who knows, maybe the results will surprise me.

Ah, so if I don't like illegal aliens I am an isolationist? Your definition needs some work. The poll is what it is. I posted it because I found it incredable that 11% of Americans want us to lose. If you look back most of the time I refer to 11% of Americans answered yes. Only a few times did I single out the dems. You see what you want to see.

[Peikko 1,575]

You found it incredible that 11% of Americans would feel that the world would be a better place if the Americans lost the war (which I also find incredible) and yet instead of thinking, hang on a minute, maybe the poll is a bit suspect (which is what I and many others have been saying) you believe the poll because why?

[GaryC 7]

You found it incredible that 11% of Americans would feel that the world would be a better place if the Americans lost the war (which I also find incredible) and yet instead of thinking, hang on a minute, maybe the poll is a bit suspect (which is what I and many others have been saying) you believe the poll because why?

If someone called you for a poll and one of the questions were "Would you think the world would be better off if we lost the war" how would you answer? My guess is no. I cannot fathom any true American justifying saying yes. You are drawing the poll into question without trying to understand why anyone would say yes to the question. That is what I wanted to discuss when I posted this. Unless your saying Fox was lying about the question then the people said what they said.

[no name 1]

If the opposite of losing is having a more stable government and better security then what they had before we invaded them is much closer to the opposite of your definition of losing than what they have now.

I find it interesting that a person who favors isolationism the way you do feels a "favorable outcome to the USA" is more important than a favorable outcome to the country we destroyed. If we had better immigration policies and practices and concentrated more on protecting our borders why concern ourselves with the chaos we have created in the middle east? What difference does it make to you if they blow each other up? Isn't that actually furthering your cause?

The main man we're after is not in Iraq. What are you trying to prevent in Iraq? Them killing each other? Them killing us? What is the goal as you see it?

Your arguments just don't make sense to me.

Personally I think we lost this war when we decided we needed to be civilized about it. And when we didn't stay focused.

How did you get the idea I am an isolationist? You must be confusing me with someone else. It makes a great deal of difference to me if they "blow themselves up". We have an obligation to them to finish what we started. To not finish it would be a disservice to them and dangerous to us. To suggest that letting them sink to a bloodbath is furthering my cause is just your weak attempt to insult me.

I got that idea by reading your posts re: immigration. I got the idea by your statement "favorable outcome to the USA".

As far as insulting people, what exactly was your purpose and initiating this thread? It is obvious that the poll you quote is extremely biased and poorly conducted and worded. Why don't you start a poll here and ask us how we feel about the war? Who knows, maybe the results will surprise me.

Ah, so if I don't like illegal aliens I am an isolationist? Your definition needs some work. The poll is what it is. I posted it because I found it incredable that 11% of Americans want us to lose. If you look back most of the time I refer to 11% of Americans answered yes. Only a few times did I single out the dems. You see what you want to see.

And.......back at ya, Gary.

[no name 1]

You found it incredible that 11% of Americans would feel that the world would be a better place if the Americans lost the war (which I also find incredible) and yet instead of thinking, hang on a minute, maybe the poll is a bit suspect (which is what I and many others have been saying) you believe the poll because why?

If someone called you for a poll and one of the questions were "Would you think the world would be better off if we lost the war" how would you answer? My guess is no. I cannot fathom any true American justifying saying yes. You are drawing the poll into question without trying to understand why anyone would say yes to the question. That is what I wanted to discuss when I posted this. Unless your saying Fox was lying about the question then the people said what they said.

and it's been covered. Some said people may have said they want to lose, IF it means getting the troops out.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, my answer would be, what do you mean by that? I think the question is senseless so I wouldn't be able to answer it. However, for whatever reason, 11% chose to interpret it in such a way as they could justify saying yes. However, my interpretation of that is not that they want terrorism to win but that they think that for example they want all the troops to come home now because they have loved ones in the army and they don't want them to get killed. There are a number of other reasonable and not unpatriotic ways it could have been interpreted. My guess is that there are less than 1% of Americans who sympathize with Alquaida or other similar terrorist organisations.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This, I guess, is where can either start over or just refer the reader back to post #8 where the debate over the value or lack thereof of this particular "news" piece started. Obviously, this isn't going anywhere but back around in circles.

I posted it because I found it incredable that 11% of Americans want us to lose. If you look back most of the time I refer to 11% of Americans answered yes. Only a few times did I single out the dems.

Well, Gary, maybe you shouldn't have singled them Dems out in the topic. That sort of sets the tone for the thread, doesn't it?

[GaryC 7]

No, my answer would be, what do you mean by that? I think the question is senseless so I wouldn't be able to answer it. However, for whatever reason, 11% chose to interpret it in such a way as they could justify saying yes. However, my interpretation of that is not that they want terrorism to win but that they think that for example they want all the troops to come home now because they have loved ones in the army and they don't want them to get killed. There are a number of other reasonable and not unpatriotic ways it could have been interpreted. My guess is that there are less than 1% of Americans who sympathize with Alquaida or other similar terrorist organisations.

That is what I intended to discuss. Not to slam dems. But since the question was would the WORLD would be better off then the idea that they were thinking of our troops doesn't apply.