I totally agree with you. Does "support for the war" mean that we want the troops to withdrawal immediately or that we're glad they are over there fighting for freedom? I'm with you. I've always opposed to the war but think it's a horrible mistake to leave now. Would that make me a "supporter"? If I thought the surge has quelled some of the violence, does that mean I think things are going well in Iraq? These polls are stupid and they seem like they were conducted without any understanding of quantitative research methods.

I totally agree with you. Does "support for the war" mean that we want the troops to withdrawal immediately or that we're glad they are over there fighting for freedom? I'm with you. I've always opposed to the war but think it's a horrible mistake to leave now. Would that make me a "supporter"? If I thought the surge has quelled some of the violence, does that mean I think things are going well in Iraq? These polls are stupid and they seem like they were conducted without any understanding of quantitative research methods.

I agree that the way polls are being presented can be confusing. I see a big difference between opposing the war and opposing the troop surge. As you mentioned they are related, but not necessarily similar issues. I'm pretty torn on the issue. My realist side says... ok, we all know that this is about oil and general stability for the region. Whatever reasoning we used to get in there, that's pretty much the only benefitial reason to stay. When I mean stability, I'm not necessarily talking about Iraq and building a government there, I'm just saying... hey, this is a traditionally chaotic area of the world, and since our country is totally dependent on an export from there, maybe it's not a horrible idea to have some sense of control of it getting over here. I'm saying that from a completely selfish viewpoint. Meaning, man... this all sucks, but what the hell would happen if gas was $10 a gallon here? Seriously. The big problem I guess I have is that it is much easier for Industrial nations to deal with 3rd world dictators then dealing with full fledged economies and multi-national companies. It's likely financially in our best interest to keep these countries poor and the dictators rich so that we have a fewer amount of people to work with and can more easily define rates. After all, who cares what the people in those countries actually have to live with. After saying all that, in the end I'm definitely against the war and against these policies. I think whatever gains we get financially from controlling the region are offset by the costs of keeping a large army there. A better solution would be to sidestep oil all-together and spend what little resources we have left into new technologies that can jump the gap. I don't know enough about the issue to know if that would have been feasible in such a short time. Points can be made that controlling the region at least for the short term, buys us some time so that we can make those eventually moves. I generally think the issue is more complex then just saying well, we've got a crazy Texan in the office on a crusade. I just wish our government would be a little more clear about its reasoning. If they said... "hey, look, we're over there because if oil exports aren't stable, we're gonna be in a lot of trouble. We need to do this to survive." I'd at least understand that. Morally I'd have to make a decision on it, but at least I'd understand what's going on.

I agree that the way polls are being presented can be confusing. I see a big difference between opposing the war and opposing the troop surge. As you mentioned they are related, but not necessarily similar issues.

I'm pretty torn on the issue. My realist side says... ok, we all know that this is about oil and general stability for the region. Whatever reasoning we used to get in there, that's pretty much the only benefitial reason to stay. When I mean stability, I'm not necessarily talking about Iraq and building a government there, I'm just saying... hey, this is a traditionally chaotic area of the world, and since our country is totally dependent on an export from there, maybe it's not a horrible idea to have some sense of control of it getting over here. I'm saying that from a completely selfish viewpoint. Meaning, man... this all sucks, but what the hell would happen if gas was $10 a gallon here? Seriously.

The big problem I guess I have is that it is much easier for Industrial nations to deal with 3rd world dictators then dealing with full fledged economies and multi-national companies. It's likely financially in our best interest to keep these countries poor and the dictators rich so that we have a fewer amount of people to work with and can more easily define rates. After all, who cares what the people in those countries actually have to live with.

After saying all that, in the end I'm definitely against the war and against these policies. I think whatever gains we get financially from controlling the region are offset by the costs of keeping a large army there. A better solution would be to sidestep oil all-together and spend what little resources we have left into new technologies that can jump the gap. I don't know enough about the issue to know if that would have been feasible in such a short time. Points can be made that controlling the region at least for the short term, buys us some time so that we can make those eventually moves.

I generally think the issue is more complex then just saying well, we've got a crazy Texan in the office on a crusade. I just wish our government would be a little more clear about its reasoning. If they said... "hey, look, we're over there because if oil exports aren't stable, we're gonna be in a lot of trouble. We need to do this to survive." I'd at least understand that. Morally I'd have to make a decision on it, but at least I'd understand what's going on.

elephantforprez says:

"Really, the surge is working. No one really pays attention to that, though, they just want to blame Bush for more stuff."

I don't think the argument is so much about wether or not the surge is working, the argument revolves around the argument why are we in Iraq in the first place. The way I see things is that I will support the troops who are fighting and doing as their commander in chief orders them to do. I will show my support by urging anyone who will listen, through votes or letters, to give them any and all the equipment that they require to be as safe as possible. However, I will not support sending more of our young people to fight in a cause that no longer seems to be a liberation as much as setting up a new American stronghold. The new Iraqi government will eventually need to stand on its own two feet, or fall to a new regime which will be able to stand on its own. The Iraqi people are not the same as the American people, different cultures need different forms of rule, maybe we should step back and let the Iraqi people determine their own fate.

elephantforprez says:

"Really, the surge is working. No one really pays attention to that, though, they just want to blame Bush for more stuff."

I don't think the argument is so much about wether or not the surge is working, the argument revolves around the argument why are we in Iraq in the first place. The way I see things is that I will support the troops who are fighting and doing as their commander in chief orders them to do. I will show my support by urging anyone who will listen, through votes or letters, to give them any and all the equipment that they require to be as safe as possible. However, I will not support sending more of our young people to fight in a cause that no longer seems to be a liberation as much as setting up a new American stronghold. The new Iraqi government will eventually need to stand on its own two feet, or fall to a new regime which will be able to stand on its own. The Iraqi people are not the same as the American people, different cultures need different forms of rule, maybe we should step back and let the Iraqi people determine their own fate.