Wow. Nice survey MSNBC.

[Charade]

Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?

Yes. The United States can still win this thing militarily; a sizable increase in troop strength, and help from the Iraqis, will turn the tide

No. Define "win." After nearly four years, neither our country nor Iraq is better off. More troops going out means more body bags coming back.

 

[Charade]

The results.

Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq? * 8354 responses

Yes. The United States can still win this thing militarily; a sizable increase in troop strength, and help from the Iraqis, will turn the tide
27%

No. Define "win." After nearly four years, neither our country nor Iraq is better off. More troops going out means more body bags coming back.
73%

 

[NewJersey]

What's so bad about it?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

What's so bad about it?

You have to admit that they are not making any attempt to hide their biased.

 

[NewJersey]

You have to admit that they are not making any attempt to hide their biased.

I know. I just like giving John a hard time.

 

[debbi801]

Wow, that is unreasonable. Talk about bias (and I'm a liberal, LOL).

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I know. I just like giving John a hard time.

Who doesn't?

Wow that is just sort of slanted, huh?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I know. I just like giving John a hard time.

Well in that case, keep it up.

 

[NewJersey]

Who doesn't?

Wow that is just sort of slanted, huh?

Congrats about your team!

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Congrats about your team!

Thank you. We couldn't have done it without Rutgers help!

 

[TheDoctor]

I really do think that there is anything wrong with this poll. No's are down to 67% right now. That is actually a little high compared to the fact that only 12% supported bush's plan before the speech.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I really do think that there is anything wrong with this poll. No's are down to 67% right now. That is actually a little high compared to the fact that only 12% supported bush's plan before the speech.

Me either...of course the politically correct right wing would rather everyone simply forget the grim reality of war and just ship the soldiers over. God forbid someone mention American deaths and Iraq in the same sentence. Dealing with a "number" is easier to handle than actually thinking about human lives lost.

 

[transparant]

Me either...of course the politically correct right wing would rather everyone simply forget the grim reality of war and just ship the soldiers over. God forbid someone mention American deaths and Iraq in the same sentence. Dealing with a "number" is easier to handle than actually thinking about human lives lost.

Oh really?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Oh really?

Please...this is hardly a swipe at people like you, transparant. You and your family talks the talk and walks the walk, and even those we disagree politically with each other, I respect you and you family members for your dedication and service.

However, do you honestly think that every person who supports this surge has a family member serving in the military? Of course not. It's easy for those people, because when the war starts to get ugly, and the body count begins to rise, they can simply flip the channel to whatever Rosie/Trump BS debate the country is involved with. By mentioning that people could get injured or killed in a poll is simply stating the realities of war.

 

[salmoneous]

Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?

So, how did you vote in the poll?

If you don't like they way they worded the answers, how about a simple yes/no - do you agree with President' Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?

 

[Golf4food]

Me either...of course the politically correct right wing would rather everyone simply forget the grim reality of war and just ship the soldiers over. God forbid someone mention American deaths and Iraq in the same sentence. Dealing with a "number" is easier to handle than actually thinking about human lives lost.

While any single life lost is a sad tragedy for their families, in the grand scheme of war 3,000 casualties is a drop in a bucket - small battles in our own Civil War cost 3,000 lives, small battles in WWII cost many times that. It has taken years to reach the casualty level we are at now in Iraq, thanks largely to limited resources and politicians handcuffing the commanders. If the politicians would let the commanders command and the soldiers fight then this whole affair would be over a lot sooner and with fewer American casualties. And that goes back to 1991 when we didn't get rid of Saddam then while the whole world would have helped replace him.

People (and the media) also conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of the violence is occurring in only TWO of Iraq's many provinces - meaning that the vast majority of Iraq is pretty stable and getting better. Schools are being built, kids are learning, hospitals are treating the sick, business are opening, real estate is growing... but reporting on such things would take our minds off of the two small areas that are being a problem.

If 20,000 more men and a freer hand to do their job means everyone comes home sooner and with fewer casualties, then go for it. Just keep the politicians out of the war. The soldiers don't tell them how to run the country, the politicians should stop telling the soldiers how to fight a war. If those two provinces are such a problem anyway and we are going to rebuild them anwyay when everything is said and done, then lets just go in with guns blazing and bombs dropping and clear the places out and get it over with. Evacuate the innocent and kill the rest. Problem solved. See everyone home in time for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

[pearlieq]

A freer hand to do what, exactly?

 

[cardaway]

A freer hand to do what, exactly?

You don't expect they will ever define the enemy or give a measure for victory, do you?

 

[Charade]

You don't expect they will ever define the enemy or give a measure for victory, do you?

That's too funny. Like you guys really believe there IS an enemy!!

 

[LuvDuke]

While any single life lost is a sad tragedy for their families, in the grand scheme of war 3,000 casualties is a drop in a bucket - small battles in our own Civil War cost 3,000 lives, small battles in WWII cost many times that. It has taken years to reach the casualty level we are at now in Iraq, thanks largely to limited resources and politicians handcuffing the commanders. If the politicians would let the commanders command and the soldiers fight then this whole affair would be over a lot sooner and with fewer American casualties. And that goes back to 1991 when we didn't get rid of Saddam then while the whole world would have helped replace him.

People (and the media) also conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of the violence is occurring in only TWO of Iraq's many provinces - meaning that the vast majority of Iraq is pretty stable and getting better. Schools are being built, kids are learning, hospitals are treating the sick, business are opening, real estate is growing... but reporting on such things would take our minds off of the two small areas that are being a problem.

If 20,000 more men and a freer hand to do their job means everyone comes home sooner and with fewer casualties, then go for it. Just keep the politicians out of the war. The soldiers don't tell them how to run the country, the politicians should stop telling the soldiers how to fight a war. If those two provinces are such a problem anyway and we are going to rebuild them anwyay when everything is said and done, then lets just go in with guns blazing and bombs dropping and clear the places out and get it over with. Evacuate the innocent and kill the rest. Problem solved. See everyone home in time for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I always love the argument X number of dead really isn't all that bad. Unless it's your dead, of course. And for most Bush/war supporters it isn't. What the hell, given that criteria, a 100,000 wouldn't make a difference if you don't have a stake in it.

And, btw, you're conveniently peddling the numbers BS when you say that only 2 provinces in Iraq are trouble spots. Those happen to be the 2 provinces Iraqis live in.

Really, at this point, I would've thought the Bush water carriers would've switched to arguments that haven't been debunked countless numbers of times in the 3.75 years.

Here's another number for you to chew on: WWII was over in 3.75 years and the enemy was the of Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany. Both of them were military powerhouses. In 3.75 years, Bush is still looking for a "plan" to win in a country that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't have a military. Explain how someone can screw up that badly, with the finest military in the world, especially when the cost is reaching $500,000,000,000 (that's billion with a "B". That takes talent.