Republican strategy, approve and continue the Iraq war
In WWII the soldiers in the US, Japan and Germany were propagandized against each other. Japan and Germany were our enemies and we had to destroy them.
They indeed attacked us and our allies. Americans all joined together, sacrificed fought and we won.
Iraq is different. Iraq was never a threat to America, had nothing to do with 9/11 and the Iraq war has only caused recruitment for more insurgents. I has created hate and anger towards the US by all the middle east and most of the world.
Oh, I see... a graduate of the John Kerry "You have to be an idiot to be in the Army" school of thought, and adherent to the Hillary Clinton “Vast rght-wing conspiracy theory.”
Mr. Muniz, here's an idea: If you are getting letters purporting to be from soldiers, but which are not from soldiers, then obviously the letters have a false premise and you shouldn't believe ANYTHING in them. (And really, how likely is that? All it takes is one reporter taking a letter and finding out if someone by that name really is in Iraq, and then asking the media outlet he works for to contact the correspondent they have in Iraq and ask him to find that soldier and ask, “Did you write this? Did you mean it?” and that whole house of cards crumbles- with a scandal that would sink the GOP for years to come, if GOP operatives were writing the letters… the reporter who breaks THAT story would get a Pulitzer) But if you put your name on a list for pen pals for servicemen and women who are in Iraq, and you are getting letters from service men and women in Iraq, then frankly, don't you think you should assume that they are quite able to speak for themselves? The VAST majority of soldiers who are in Iraq support the mission and feel that they are doing a good and noble thing in being there. Even most lefties and peace activists admit that. EVERYTHING I, personally, have seen from the soldiers supports that view. No, not 100% of the soldiers support the effort- but then, we don’t get 100% on anything anymore, do we? But even most of the reports we see from soldiers who have been wounded and have permanent disabilities from their wounds tell us the mission is worth the effort and worth the cost. And a bunch of soldiers express frustration that the media seems to emphasize the problems and leave out the positive things the soldiers accomplish.
So, if you want to say you have a better political understanding of what the war is about than the rest of us, hey, have at it- maybe you can convince us all you know something. If you want to say you know better than the soldiers what’s going on in Iraq, well, most people are not going to take that seriously, except other people who also already think they know better what’s happening than the people who are on the ground over there. But when you get around to saying that the folks who are brave enough to go over there and carry rifles, and get shot at and shoot back, are not brave enough to write an honest letter… well, at that point, lots of people are going to think that’s a pretty arrogant and condescending attitude to take. I hope that’s not what you are writing back to the soldiers. They don’t need to hear it. The fact that you are getting “a lot of letters” that support the war should tell you something. If they aren’t from soldiers, but from “Republican operatives,” then writing your thoughts back will have no effect. If they are from soldiers, writing back what you say you think of the war can only have a negative effect on those soldiers. And I’m willing to bet that those letters don’t say, “Hey, tell me what YOU think of what we’re over here doing!” I think, from what you wrote, those letters are saying something more like, “Hey, let me tell you what those of us in Iraq think about what’s going on here!” And if they say, “they really believe risking their lives is worth attempting to bring a democracy to a country ruled by religious sects,” and “they really believe there were WMDs… in Iraq,” then I would accept that it’s really what they think.
I will embrace the bulk of the people sentiment that our troops must come home. If Hitler's final madness was his surge resulting in the Battle of the Bulge, Bush's surge is his final madness. r22037 yahoo
Posted by Richard Grimes on March 31, 2007 03:55 PMTo compare Bush to Hitler is so far out in lala-land, it is not worthy of response. To compare the Allied defeat of Naziism to anything in Iraq is of similar value. The argument above is not about "should the troops come home." It is about do we think the troops can speak for themselves, or shall we assume they are too dumb and intimidated to say what they think, and need good leftists to speak for them.
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 31, 2007 04:35 PMMichael, having fired off your snide Kerry remark you assign yourself the role of Republican cheerleader and hint that further conversation is limited to either agreeing on ideological backslapping or simply trading in a duel of talking point or trading in amusing insults and epithets.
You know full well that Kerry didn’t mean the barb in the way you are portraying it, and therefore you depart from useful discourse by pretending he did.
Bango,
Actually, I don't know Kerry didn't mean that the way it sounded. In fact, I am quite convinced he meant it exactly that way, Kerry's denials and explanations notwithstanding. Do you think Ann Coulter should get by with saying her remark about Edwards was just "a schoolyard taunt"? Neither do I. But references to Hitler are not in the same category, as either of those, and I would think you would acknowledge that. You're usually pretty intellectually honest, here, Bango. And by the way, while I said his comment regarding Bush and Hitler was not worthy of response, I did, in fact, respond to his other assertion, pointing out that it does not address the argument I made. That is not “hinting that further discussion is limited,” in any way. It is stating that he has not addressed the same issue I was addressing. I made no assertion regarding withdrawing the troops. I did assert that the letter-writer's assumptions regarding his email are insulting to the troops who wrote them. I stand by that position. Do you think this answer is “hinting” that you have to agree with me? Or is this a legitimate address of the issues you raised?
Here are the results of February 2006 poll of American troops in Iraq:
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.
"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”
See the above URL for the remainder of the poll results.
Posted by Truth on March 31, 2007 06:37 PMWhile I was looking for polls of U.S. troops in Iraq, I ran across this poll of Iraqis. Sorry but I couldn't get the columns to match up the way they should.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.
Q1. Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days? Would you say things are very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?
2007 2005 2004
Very Good 8% 22% 13%
Quite Good 31% 49% 57%
Quite Bad 32% 18% 14%
Very Bad 28% 11% 15%
Q2. Compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse?
2007 2005 2004
Much Better 12% 35% 37%
Somewhat Better 29% 31% 35%
About the Same 22% 19% 23%
Somewhat worse 28% 19% 13%
Much Worse 8% 10% 6%
51% said that considered attacks on Coalition forces to be acceptable, as compared to 17% in 2004.12% said that considered attacks on Iraqi government forces to be acceptable.
31% thought that Coalition forces were to blame for most of the violence, and 18% thought that of Al Qaeda/foreign jihads. Blame of less that 10% was pointed at other elements, such as Preseident Bush, Iraqi government, Iraqi army, Iraqi police, Sectarian disputes.
Only 35% thought that the U.S. should pull out now. The rest thought U.S. should stay until various markers, such as Until security is restored, Until the Iraqi government is stronger, Until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently.
The poll covered many other questions; see the above URL for those results.
Michael Trimble says this about Leonard Muniz' letter:
"But when you get around to saying that the folks who are brave enough to go over there and carry rifles, and get shot at and shoot back, are not brave enough to write an honest letter… well, at that point, lots of people are going to think that’s a pretty arrogant and condescending attitude to take. I hope that’s not what you are writing back to the soldiers."
I see no grounds at all for Michael to wonder if Muniz is saying that. No ground at all. Muniz said nothing at all to justify Michael's comment. It's a bit like someone saying, "Michael, when you get around to saying that you don't care how many Americans die in Iraq, well, at that point, lots of people are going to think that’s a pretty arrogant and condescending attitude to take.. I hope that's not what you are writing to the soldiers." There simply are no grounds for either such comment.
Muniz deservers an apology from Michael.
Posted by on March 31, 2007 06:48 PMCORRECTION.
My 06:27 post above incorrectly listed this paragraph as being from the poll:
"The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%."
WRONG. That paragraph is part of the poll of the Iraqis, which I posted at 06:40.
Posted by Truth on March 31, 2007 06:58 PMTruth, that's really interesting information. Good work, finding that- it addressing the issue head on, though incompletely. The only question I have is, of the soldiers who say the US should be out in 6 months, do they mean, "Regardless of conditions" or "we should be successful by that time and be able to leave." Did you get a feeling for that?
6:48- here is what I saw that caused me to write what you are concerned about:
"They MUST believe it [pro-war propaganda]and they don’t dare criticize their leaders." I took that as Muniz saying "they must profess to believe, and dare not criticize..."
However, in context, he may have meant that their own anxiety prevents them from recognizing what their good sense should tell them. In that case, the latter is a worse insult than the former- but I will take it into consideration if Muniz can show me a graduate degree in psychology. It actually appears to me that Muniz was proabaly trying to make both arguments, now that you draw my attention to it.
In either case, I will not be apologizing for saying Muniz is professing concern for the troops (geniuine? Sure, I'll accept that) but still insults either their inteligence or their assertiveness, or their mental health. My argument really is just that the soldiers can speak for themselves, and don't need Muniz' help, second guessing why they don't know what is in their own best interests (Truth, was 6:48 yours? Just wondering how many posters I am dealing with here.)
I believe that every single service member should have the option of leaving the military immediatley...without any repercussions. Seeing how they are serving under a lying, manipulating and evil commander in chief, these soldiers cannot possibly be held to the oath that they signed up under. Oh, and while we are at it...impeach geedumbya and try him as a war criminal. Better yet...no trial, just hold him indefinetly as an "enemy combatant".
Posted by Darwin on March 31, 2007 08:55 PMGood thinking, Darwin. And "lying, manipulating and evil commander(s) in chief" are the MOST LIKELY kind to go along with that too, right?
Oh, but you know what? We've already had a couple guys try to SAY they don't want to serve for just that kind of reason... the courts disagreed... bummer, huh?
Hi, Michael. Yes, darn it, I did it again, forgot to show my name on the 06:48 post.
You ask: "The only question I have is, of the soldiers who say the US should be out in 6 months, do they mean, "Regardless of conditions" or "we should be successful by that time and be able to leave." Did you get a feeling for that?"
I don't know how they would have answered if those conditions were specifically mentioned to them, but the poll said that only 28% said we should stay "as long as needed", which can be taken to suggest that they thought we should leave within those time periods, period.
The statement you made which I criticized is not the one you brought forward in your reply post. The statement I criticized has to do with whether the troops were brave enough to write an honest letter. I maintain that he said nothing at all to suggest that was his thinking.
As to the statement you brought forward in your reply post, Muniz said:
"Do they really believe risking their lives is worth attempting to bring a democracy to a country ruled by religious sects? Did they really believe there were WMDs, nuclear and Al Qeada in Iraq? They are being propagandized to fight in Iraq. They MUST believe it and they don’t dare criticize their leaders. After all, who wants to believe they are fighting for a President’s ego?"
So, Muniz said he thinks the troops must believe that it is worth risking their lives to bring a democracy to Iraq, and must believe there were WMDs, Nuclear and Al Queda in Iraq. Do you think otherwise, that our troops do not believe it is worth the risk and that our troops do not believe there were WMDs and al Queda in Iraq? If you don't believe otherwise, then you agree with Muniz. The fact is that Muniz was really speculating about what the troops think. You did the same thing. In my opinion, it was not a good idea for either of you to thus speculate. which is why I tried to find a poll on the subject. Such a poll is far from gospel, but it is a lot closer to gospel than what either you or Muniz happen to speculate.
Posted by Truth on March 31, 2007 10:01 PMTruth-
"28% said we should stay "as long as needed", " Good point- that may suggest they think we should leave in that time frame, regardless. I would lke to see the actual forms and data, and maybe design a question to tease that out in the next survey- still, your explanation is probably the most likely (which leaves me saying 2/3- a hefty majority- still want to stay a while and try to finish the job, do you agree?)
"They are being propagandized to fight in Iraq" I suggest this is saying, "They are being fooled" and it implies "They can't figure out the truth."
"After all, who wants to believe they are fighting for a President’s ego? If they all knew the real truth they would all go AOL. "
I suggest that the author is clearly saying "The soldiers over there don't know what is true- but I do" and "the soldiers are uncomfortable thinking about what I know is true." Not a fair interpretation, Truth? It still comes down to saying they are too stupid, or not brave enough (or perhaps strong enough or not stable enough) to face the author's view of truth, doesn't it? I don't know that the troops spend much time thinking about WMD or Al-Queda in Iraq these days. I think they see evil acts of terrorism, and feel they should act. I think they also know that 2 in 3 Iraqi people still want their help, and that's probably enough for them, combined with their own observations.
As a semi-relevant point let me say that since we know Saddam did have WMD we only need to determine what happened to them. Simplest view is that give me that much sand, a total power of life and death over anyone I send/sent out to hide them and the extended warning period leading up to the war I could have hidden EVERY SINGLE WMD. Of course Saddam had the common trait of all tyrants in that he thought his power was permanent. Would he have given them away? I dunno.
I do believe that the American Military is capable of winning any battle if they are permited to fight. I call this a garden party war because too many restrictions on the troops endanger them more than anything else.
And to think that Al-Quaida was all over the surrounding countries but not in Iraq is nonsense. Saddam provided medical treatment and training areas for terrorists from Al-Quaida (sorry about the spelling my keyboard is dying and I am starting to favor euthanasia)
Politicians are only to be trusted to spend money not make good choices unless they get lucky. That is where we come in. We are the ones in control of who we elect.
momma y-
euthanasia is a liberal concept. You need to take that keyboard out back and put a mercy bullet in it- THAT'S what red-blooded Republicans do!
There is some Iraqi Air force general who, though in prison at the time of the invasion, says that the WMDs were airlifted out in the months leading up to invasion- but most lefties discount his story, and to be reasonable, I should acknowledge that this guy won't name his sources. He wrote a book though- maybe, "Saddam's Secrets" or something like that?
Michael
I would shoot it but I have my rifles in storage away from the house. (We are raising my grand daughter and until she is 16 and can be taught gun safety that is where they will be unless I am hunting.)
Besides, euthanasia for this case is very appropriate. I will donate this keyboard to a elementary school class ( we "rescue" business computers and donate them to women's shelters and kids whose families can't afford computers by themselves. If I am very upset with it I will donate it to MIke Litwin. That would teach it a lesson.
I think we will know the truth much later about WMD just like many of the things we are now discovering about missing treasures taken in WWII.
I am thinking of reading that book but any book, whether I agree with it or not, has to pass the test of reason and not revealing your sources can count against that. Now about that garden party..can we let the hound dogs play in the mud puddle then let them in?
Posted by momma y on April 1, 2007 10:54 AMMichael: "(which leaves me saying 2/3- a hefty majority- still want to stay a while and try to finish the job, do you agree?)"
Bear in mind, Michael, that the survey was in February of 2006, over a year ago.
I find myself wondering if you agree with Muniz that the troops:
1) Believe that risking their lives is worth the attempt to bring a democracy to Iraq; and
2) Believe that there were WMDs, nuclear and al Queda in Iraq.
Or if, on the other hand, you think that the troops:
1) Don't believe that risking their lives is worth the risk; and
2) Don't believe the Iraq had WMDs and al Queda?
You say about Muniz wording: "They are being propagandized to fight in Iraq" I suggest this is saying, "They are being fooled" and it implies "They can't figure out the truth."
According to the polls, most of the American people think they have been lied to, that is, propagandized, that is, being fooled, that is, can't figure out the truth. I don't see why it should be all that different for the troops.
Certainly you are entitled to your apparent opinion that Bush did not do any propagandizing. This, despite Cheney's claim that he knew just exactly where the WMDs were. And despite the claims of the Bush people that we would not need a large force in Iraq, and that the war would last weeks, not months, and that the Iraqi people would love having us there. And despite the evidence that Cheney particularly pressured the intelligence community to present evidence that he was right and discouraged contrary evidence. And despite the fact that the Bush administration regularly told the American people, including the troops, that things were going well as in fact they were getting much worse.
Here are more results from the February 2006 poll of troops in Iraq:
"The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”
“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%)."
I love it, a person using the handle "Truth", who continuously uses data from political polls as evidence. Talk about irony.
Posted by Tim on April 1, 2007 04:24 PM
Tim-
A member of the "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics" school? (probably not an exact quote, but you know the one...) Well, it can be irritating to deal with stats all the time, but if there is an applicable survey out there, Truth is going to find it. It's actually quite useful sometimes, rather not at other times, but it would be much better if the actual data were posted- usually for these AP, Zogby, Gallup, etc. polls, all that's easy to find are the summary reports, which is what makes effective analysis hard. If you haven't had a course in statistical analysis, let me recommend it too you. You clearly have the mind for it (hell, you could easily learn it all from a good book, bud), and it makes these things much more sensible- and shows up a lot of the errors in these things, too.
Truth-
I see the direction of your argument, and you may have a good one, as far as that goes. But recall that my assertion to the author was only that he should let the troops speak for themselves. I wonder if there was an option on that poll for the soldiers to answer, “I don't care how we got here, that's above my pay-grade. I believe we are doing the right thing NOW, and I'm going to do it to my best ability, for as long as it takes.” In other words, I think it would be possible, and maybe easy, to make a moral judgment about whether the job I am doing is helping more than hurting based on my behavior without worrying about how my bosses decided what job to give me. I might make the debate you are moving to in another thread, but here, I am just saying “Don't condescend to the troops and put words in their mouths because you (the author) don't like what they say.”
BTW, a year-old poll saying “we should leave in a year” does not mean they are saying “we should leave right now” at this time. I know you didn't say that, but it's an argument I can almost hear people reading into this discussion.
Tim: "I love it, a person using the handle "Truth", who continuously uses data from political polls as evidence. Talk about irony."
Actually, Tim, I go out and verify the polls by talking to all those people in person. It's part of my job. Let me know if you'd care to volunteer your services.
Posted by Truth on April 1, 2007 07:31 PMhmmmm... tough call on who gets the "Supreme Sarcasm Award" this time...
I think Tim and Truth are going to have to go into overtime...
BTW, Tim, I have been waiting for you to chime in on "Democracy's seed of destruction"- I thought that was right up your ally- well, except for the whole thing that you are a resonable person... not much call for that in some of these forums... did you look at that one yet?
Posted by Michael Trimble on April 1, 2007 09:16 PM