Posted on 07/23/2007 10:55:21 PM PDT by neverdem
Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.
But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly.
However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared with 23 percent just last week.
Many of those who said the invasion was correct made it clear, however, that they are no longer convinced the United States should remain there.
“At the time that we went into Iraq, we had just come out of 9/11. The nation was in shock, frightened,” Sally Fisher of Garden City, Mich., said in a follow-up interview after the poll was conducted. “Looking back, I still think we should have gone in. Should we have stayed as long as we did? No.”
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday with 889 adults. The margin of...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Wow! That says something if the NYT put it on the front page!
Have we really reached this surreal point? Where we're polling Americans on their "support" for a historical event?
The initial invasion of Iraq occurred in 2003. It is nonsensical to ask people "do you support the initial invasion of Iraq". How can you "support", or not, a historical event that already occurred? More to the point, who cares?
Hey Freepers, do you support the Trojan War?
Do you?
What about now? Do you support it now? Did you change your mind about whether you support the Trojan War since the last time I asked?
Truly surreal.
I supported the invasion of Iraq initially, because the media seemed happy about the progress. Remember the embedded media and ‘shock and awe’?
Later, with the torture photos and mounting troop losses, when the media told me to, I started to tell people it was a big mistake.
When the elections in Iraq took place, the media seem impressed with the fingers dipped in purple ink, so I was too. I once again supported the invasion, once the media assured me it was ok to do so.
In the runup to the November 2006 elections, it was obvious to me the media was again not happy with the invasion, and I felt the same. Not happy.
I am prepared, should the war start going better and the media therefore changing its position yet again, to say the invasion was a good thing.
Hope you can follow all this.
Call it nuance.
My screen name at KOS and DU is Mary’s Pet.
I’m surprised The NY Slimes put it on the front page. I thought they would have buried that.
Well, I used to, but not now.
After all, the whole thing was about that Trojan guy stealing that Greek guy's chick - Helen. Fighting for your woman is one thing but sheesh, how stoo-pid can you get - total war???.
So no, I don't support it 'now', they should have settled the matter in Divorce Court.
The NYT provides the marching orders for other biased liberal “journalists” busy spinning the news in their own papers, magazines, and TV stations.
This is interned as a warning: Up the propaganda, its not working fast enough!
Um... why do people say bizarre things like this?
What exactly do you think has been happening these past 4 years? Not enough Iraqis dying for you? You want more? More dying? More Iraqis dead would satisfy you? More Iraqi blood, say you?
“The initial invasion of Iraq occurred in 2003. It is nonsensical to ask people “do you support the initial invasion of Iraq”. How can you “support”, or not, a historical event that already occurred? More to the point, who cares?”
The liberals care, in order to rhetorically wave the bloody shirt in future elections. It’s a Marxist thing - it’s particularly important for the liberals to own history, so they can control it in the future.
As for me, I think the biggest mistake made in our lifetimes was the Presidency of Jimmy Carter.
??? You said "It's about time Iraqis die for Iraqi freedom".
What sort of "context" overturns the plain fact that you're literally wishing for more Iraqis to die than already have?
I think you'll find overwhelming support for that position.
I think you'll find overwhelming support for the position that all of Paris Hilton's activities are fascinating. Don't care.
I assume you'd prefer our soldiers walk a beat indefinitely in Iraq's major cities, protecting Iraqis and getting shot at or blown up while the Iraqi government diddles itself and takes vacations.
You present a false choice. If more Iraqis were dying, would this make American soldiers safer? How?
The specific issue of patrols is not one that I have a fixed position on. I assume our generals know better than I how to achieve our goals in Iraq; if they've decided it's important to show a force presence by having regular patrols, so be it.
And what does the Iraqi parliament have to do with anything? Let's say they don't go on vacation (as you're complaining about). How will that make American soldiers safer?
But you'd better be ready to enlist because Americans won't enlist for it in the numbers required.
If recruitment shrinks below needed levels, we can adjust as necessary. Whether I personally join the military will have no effect on the matter one way or another. This is a particularly dumb form of the "chickenhawk" argument.
“Iraqi government diddles itself and takes vacations. “
They are doing a better job than the Congress *we* have had these past 6 months. And Dr Frank is right - Iraqis are dying left and right and there are many Iraqi patriots putting their lives on the line.
And “Americans won’t enlist for it in the numbers required” is another liberal meme that we seem to have wrongly adopted.
When our leaders show the spirit that we will fight to win, and show a realistic strategy to reach our goals, American people will follow. Polls wax and wane in response to the commitment of our leaders.
More evidence of Iraqis stepping up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1870238/posts
The only Iraqis "vacationing" are the ones in parliament. I don't know what you envision those parliamentarians doing otherwise, but I can tell you that "dying instead of an American soldier" was never quite in the cards anyway. So I still can't figure out why when/whether the parliament guys go on vacation is relevant. Again: you need to explain how/why them not going on vacation would save American soldiers.
In general, it sounds like you have a cartoon picture in your head of how things work in Iraq, to the effect that there's a certain quota of people required to Die For Iraqi Freedom per month (or whatever), and the only reason American soldiers are dying is that not enough Iraqis are stepping up to fill this quota. Therefore, somehow, in your mind, if more Iraqis would step up and die, then fewer Americans would have to.
This picture is utter nonsense, of course. Again, all I can do is point out that LOTS AND LOTS OF IRAQIS HAVE BEEN DYING over the past 4 years. An Iraqi dying doesn't somehow magically prevent an American from dying - thus, even more Iraqis dying (in addition to the lots dying already!) wouldn't save Americans - because, Iraq not being a board-game, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT HOW IT WORKS. There is no "Die For Iraqi Freedom Quota" in effect.
Again, why should our troops die for their freedom if they could care less?
What makes you think "they could care less"? That's just so stupid. Human beings in Iraq don't care whether they live or die, whether they are kidnapped or murdered? Is that really what you think? Why do you think that?
It's a nice hobby to be an armchair-warrior posting anonymously
About as nice of a hobby as to be an armchair-griper, posting anonymously, I imagine.
but the folks whose sons and daughters, spouses and children will feel the actual brunt of death and maiming may not share your enthusiasm.
Or they may. Opinions differ. Have you anointed yourself spokesman of all military families, O wise one?
Of course, you have suffered too. You've expended many keystrokes here on the war and run the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome.
You assume quite an awful lot for someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. You've also made this needlessly personal. This ad hominem stuff is essentially an admission that you lack good arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.