Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Hargus, Diana wrote:
I was providing another viewpoint to the ones you expressed. A poll can
be phrased to frame the appropriate outcome.
I don't know the details of the poll. Here is some info from
factcheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/article366.html
ABC/Time/BBC poll asked "How long do you think the US and other coalition
forces should remain in Iraq?" The results:
26 per cent said "leave now."
19 per cent said "remain until the Iraqi government elected in
December is in place."
16 per cent said "remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate
independently."
31 per cent said "remain until security is restored."
3 per cent said "remain longer but leave eventually."
1 per cent said "never leave."
4 per cent expressed no opinion.
Which is somewhat different than John Murtha suggested. Murtha's numbers
are explained here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511230002
No matter which numbers we rely on, it looks like about 1/2 of Iraqis want
us out now or soon. I'm not one of those who thinks we should simply
leave, but I do see the merit in that proposal.
True, they will be unhappy. But did your parents use loans to go to
school? My father did not, yet he got it done.
My dad was on the GI bill. He graduated from college in 1962 and was the
first in his family ever to go to college (as far as we can tell). It
wasn't that long ago that only the wealthier Americans went to college.
We can return to those old ways but I don't think it's a good idea.
If they want it badly enough, they will find a way.
If we make it harder for people to go to college, fewer people will go to
college. I think that is a bad way to design your society. Sure, some
people will be wanting it badly enough that they'll manage to pull it off,
but what about the effect of reduced college attendence on society? What
we need is to encourage higher education to retain (or regain?) our edge
in technology. Money spent in education is money well spent, if you ask
me.
* If all actions can be traced to selfishness, what selfish
* needs is our selfish President satisfying by having our
* military fight in Iraq?
Playing soldier? Trying to look good for daddy? Ego (in a poli?It is
anybody's guess... But, I wish I knew why you don't want us there,
perhaps because we don't know? If we had answers, maybe we could say
more than what we are.
One fact is that a "war president" (as Bush has sometimes called himself)
is given more power. Another is that during wartime, the people tend to
be more supportive of their leader, so starting a war helps you to get
re-elected. I'm not even saying that Bush could have come up with these
ideas on his own, but his advisers could have. Also, it looks like some
of the so-called neocon group, like Wolfowitz, have been really interested
in invading Iraq for a long time. They had some kind of theory to test.
Anyway, the reason I think we should not be in Iraq is that we didn't want
to go there. The US was drawn into Iraq based on false information. The
American people wanted to fight the terrorists who had attacked us on
9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, so we didn't really want to go
after him at that moment. We had to be deceived to be persuaded to
cooperate with the war plan. Now that we know better, we know that we
didn't want to be in Iraq and we know that we should have kept after Osama
bin Laden. It's too late to just abruptly withdraw from Iraq, but we
should be trying to get out of there -- we need to start planning it now.
Here are some of my arguments in favor of the war back when I didn't
realize how badly I was being deceived:
http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/iraq/
And thank you for the clear, concise answers.
You're welcome. And thank you. It's nice to have my answers appreciated.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion