US opinion poll on Iraq ear

"regn.pickford" wrote:


"Gordon Levi" wrote in message
.. .
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

57% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I support finishing
the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi
government can maintain control and provide security for their
people.”
That statement encapsulates the folly of coalition policy in Iraq. It
implies that the current Iraqi government wants to provide "security
for their people" and that coalition forces are making a positive
contribution to that end. There is ample evidence that those
assumptions are false.

Now what about asking the question - "Do you agree with the statement
'We should stay in Iraq despite the sectarian violence that has
steadily increased since our arrival and the presence of Islamic
terrorists and Iran backed militia that have come to attack the United
States'"?

The option being Do you want to withdraw the troops and see
4 million sunnies turned into grease signalling the invasions
by Iran, Syria and possibly Turkey with further butchering of the
Kurds
These scenarios are probably mutually exclusive but let's suppose they
are all possible. The situation _now_ is a disaster for the coalition
and for the Iraqis. Why not withdraw the forces to neighbouring
countries and tell the Iraqis, Iran, Syria and possibly Turkey, to
sort it out. Re invasion of Iraq is always an option and a foreign
invasion of Iraq is something that the United States is capable of,
and would relish, defeating. I do not understand why you, and the U.S.
Administration, want to turn this into another Vietnam by choosing
between staying and losing or retreating and losing. It is still
possible to retreat and retain some power to influence the outcome.
and have the pprice of oil determined by radical
Islamics who want to destroy the West.?
If Iraq and Iran are the major factors in determining the price of oil
then the situation cannot get worse. The United States is involved in
a major confrontation with Iran and the radical Islamics are ensuring
that Iraq's oil production is insignificant.

"Gordon Levi" wrote in message
...
"regn.pickford" wrote:


"Gordon Levi" wrote in message
.. .
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

57% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I support finishing
the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi
government can maintain control and provide security for their
people.”
That statement encapsulates the folly of coalition policy in Iraq. It
implies that the current Iraqi government wants to provide "security
for their people" and that coalition forces are making a positive
contribution to that end. There is ample evidence that those
assumptions are false.

Now what about asking the question - "Do you agree with the statement
'We should stay in Iraq despite the sectarian violence that has
steadily increased since our arrival and the presence of Islamic
terrorists and Iran backed militia that have come to attack the United
States'"?

The option being Do you want to withdraw the troops and see
4 million sunnies turned into grease signalling the invasions
by Iran, Syria and possibly Turkey with further butchering of the
Kurds
These scenarios are probably mutually exclusive but let's suppose they
are all possible. The situation _now_ is a disaster for the coalition
and for the Iraqis. Why not withdraw the forces to neighbouring
countries and tell the Iraqis, Iran, Syria and possibly Turkey, to
sort it out. Re invasion of Iraq is always an option and a foreign
invasion of Iraq is something that the United States is capable of,
and would relish, defeating. I do not understand why you, and the U.S.
Administration, want to turn this into another Vietnam by choosing
between staying and losing or retreating and losing.


If the opportunity to divvy up countries could get Stalin and Hitler to
come to an amicable agreement, there shouldn't be a problem for Iran
Syria and Turkey carving out new possesions from a former Iraq.

As with Iraq the preferred option is that force is avoided and the ragheads
wake up to themselves and comply with the requests from the UN.

force is the remaining option when diplomacy fails.



It is still
possible to retreat and retain some power to influence the outcome.
and have the pprice of oil determined by radical
Islamics who want to destroy the West.?
If Iraq and Iran are the major factors in determining the price of oil
then the situation cannot get worse. The United States is involved in
a major confrontation with Iran and the radical Islamics are ensuring
that Iraq's oil production is insignificant.

I'm sure Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the other relatively `west neutral'
oil suppliers will take heart at this new radical syrianna on their
doorsteps considering how they just whupped the Coalition and sent them
scarpering over the hills and far away.