The tide has turned.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics/politico/main3933699.shtml I think the actual support number is even higher because lots of conservatives that support the war effort don't talk to reporters and don't do polls. I think in the end Iraq will be a better place if we don't cut and run and we see this thing through. I hate the costs as much as anyone, but the cost of letting that turn into somekind of permanent terrorist breeding ground is much more IMHO. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I feel a pullout will lead to chaos and a big humanitarian crisis.

Of course, nobody knows yet what the goals actually are. Stealing the oil and demonstrating teh awesome powaaaa have already failed.

Now let's do a follow-up poll and ask them what those goals are.

^ Or show those silent superpatriot conservatives a map and ask them where Iraq is anyway

Great question for the other 47 percent of Americans as well.

Edited for accuracy.

Yes, only for them, pointing out that America doesn't have any goals left fits their first answer.

Stealing the oil?
Are we really making a profit on any oil taken from Iraq, since we spend a gazillion dollars a day fighting there?

As for demonstrating our awesome power.....nobody needs a demonstration - the world knows what we're capable of, so we had nothing to prove in this case.

Just to name a few: support of terrorism (which included backing wonderful groups like Egyptian Islamic Jihad), doing an end around UN sanctions by subverting the Oil for Food program and continued persecution of the civilian population.

All of the reasons to go into Iraq were more than sufficiently explained, most people just chose to tune out everything except "Saddam might have WMDs!"

Let's also not forget to ask them exactly how far down the line "ultimately" is. If, 50 years from now, Iraq is a stable tin-pot dictatorship that doesn't sabre-rattle at its neighbors and has slightly better respect for human rights than under Saddam, I'd say that 1) is pretty likely and 2) would qualify as "ultimately succeed[ing]," albeit at an unconscionable price for extremely modest success.

Oh dear lord.

Is there a point in time when the anti-war folks are going to acknowledge that yes, there are specific goals in place to determine success, and that yes, there were reasons stated other than the WMDs for going to war (though understandably the media focused on that).

I can understand making the argument that the insurgency was poorly handled, I can understand questioning the strategic decisions that led to the war, I can understand questioning the cost, but the goals and reasons stated are a matter of fact, not opinion.

There were many, many other reasons stated. At different times. Several of them in direct contradiction to each other. And some of the latter at the same time, even in the same breath.

But there is still no consensus whatsoever among the pro-war folks as to what those goals were or are, as evidenced by the fact that some of the original pro-war folks now agree the war has failed, some say it has worked and the US should get out, some think those goals are now slowly being met, and some think this might take another 100 years.

In foreign policy, at least.

It was good enough to call those traitors and terrorists who wouldn't join the war because there were too few troops comitted, because there was no long-term plan for a stable Iraq post-Saddam, and because there was no good intelligence on WMDs.

Now, it seems that the pro-war crowd is defending the war by saying there were a few mistakes made considering troop level, long-term plans, and WMD intelligence, but "in essence" the war deserves support, because it achieves such other goals as turning Iraq into a stable democracy, as well as into an apocalyptic battlefield against al'Quaeda, and both at the same time. If they had said the same thing on the international stage back in 03, Rumsfeld would have considered them allies of bin Laden, and that is not my hyperbole, but Rumsfeld's.

I know it's next to a hard place, but there's something between them.

Let's start with the OP.

enlisted person, can you define those goals for us?

Most liberals can't spell "map" let alone "Iraq."

Wouldn't the appropriate population to survey be the Iraqis?

Posts like this make me wonder what you think the relationship is between Americans and American corporations.

Establish a democracy that might help give some stabilization to the Middle Region once it takes hold. Removing a murderous dictator from power that has threatened his neighboring countries on numerous occassions. Stopping his support of terrorist activities. I know a direct link between him and alqueda 9/11 could never be proven, but his support of terrorism within the middle east cannot be denied. He bragged about giving money to the families of suicide bombers. We could not continue to let that sort of thing go on. The man had billions of oil money at his disposal and wanted to aquire WMD, it was only a matter of time and there is no doubt as to the fact that he would have used such weapons when he got them.

with which he was just about to attack the west.

The fact that that was total bollocks, I can just about forgive. The fact that it was grammatically inelegantly expressed pisses me off beyond reason.
It's even worse than 'nuke you lar'

You can prove that, of course? This liberal even knows there's an alternate spelling for Iraq. Do you?

Is all of that contained in one Bush speech, or would you have to link us to several?

They'd have to be speeches he gave *prior to* mid-March 2003.

I heard quite a few alternate names of Iraq from military guys, but I'm not sure how to spell them

Demonstrating my awesomeness is never a failure. Then again, it is a bit unnecessary.