But parts of the Bible might be figurative. Including the part about the source.
Parts are figurative, but that doesn't mean it's random, and that any given sentence has an equal probability of being figurative or literal. So no.
I mean, when the Bible claims it is the word of God, maybe it means that it came entirely from the god-like part of regular old humans.
That God is an aspect of all of us and indeed of the universe itself is one interpretation of the nature of God, a subject about which He is famously terse ("I Am"). What God is precisely doesn't change whether the book is His Word.
That is the issue that any intelligent person has with people who pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are figurative.
I disagree that intelligent people think it is impossible to reason about what is figurative and what is literal, and that it is all up in the air. I think only stupid people think that. But I also don't think that's something you believe with regard to anything but the Bible (or other religious texts), meaning it's an affectation that springs from anti-religious bias.
You're not religious. You don't believe my book is divine. I get it, and that's fine. Don't transmute that into the illogical conclusion that it is therefore impossible for a believer to interpret this book much as you would any other work.
It is clearly laid out not as a right to bear arms for all citizens, but as a MEANS to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, if you are not PART OF a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then you DO NOT have a right to bear arms.
Nonsense! It is clearly laid out that the purpose of the right is to have a well regulated militia for purposes of checking the power of the government should the need arise -- yes, that's what it's for, so having the government choose who gets to have a gun runs completely contrary to that -- but it is also clearly laid out that regardless of that purpose the actual right is granted to "the people". It is "the right of the people". It's not the right of the militia, it is not the right of the people if they're in a militia (which, at least as the term was used in the 1700s, every (male) citizen is in the militia). It says as clear as day "the right of the people shall not be infringed".
The right is granted to the people. EXPLICITLY to the people. What the government has done is take away the militia, and you argue that this gives them the power to take away our ("the people's") Constitutionally given right to bear arms? No, that's backwards. If that's your logic, then the fact that I am not considered part of the militia is an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights by the government. The solution is not to take my right away. My explicitly granted right.
Here's why, specifically, Christian's don't get to pick and choose: the whole basis of the authority of the Bible is that the Bible claims the Bible is the literal word of God.
"Literal word of God" is not the same as "The word of God, to be read literally". One is describing the source, the other the interpretation.
"It was raining cats and dogs" is literally what I just typed. However the phrase itself is not to be taken literally. And unless you really think the Bible intended to claim that the Kingdom of Heaven is literally like a fig tree -- woody, deciduous, and up to ten meters tall -- then this difference should be obvious.
Fundamentalists don't understand this obvious difference, but they're stupid. You can deliberately engage in the same stupidity if you want. It doesn't make you smart.
He can only hide behind the "I'm a hero because I crashed my plane in the jungle and then made videos for the Viet Cong" angle for so long.
Hey now. Go ahead and question how heroic getting shot down really is, at least so far as whether you can base an entire Presidency upon the fact. But "made videos for the VC" is going exactly contrary to that kind of thoughtful analysis. Because in reality he was tortured until he made videos for the VC, and eventually cracking under torture does not in any way diminish his hero status (to whatever extent that may be) because any hero would crack, eventually. The human brain is simply not designed to withstand unlimited pain, and it's a relatively simple matter to inflict enough of it that anyone will say whatever you want.
Which, by the way, is why torture is really not that useful for interrogation, because that's ultimately the result you get: Them saying whatever you want them to say.
Which does bring me to a real issue I have with McCain, and that's that while I have much respect and sympathy for his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton, he lost nearly all of that the moment he allowed the door to be opened even a tiny bit for sanctioned torture by U.S. forces. There's no practical and no moral justification, and he of all people should know that. Seemed to know that and say as much. That he would sacrifice that principle just to fit in with his party and to boost his "tough on terror" cred (as if he needs to) is very, very disappointing.
But that's been the trend since the last election cycle, everything I liked about McCain has been slipping away.
No, the crux of the debate is the word 'people', because that is who the amendment explicitly gives the right to.
The right of the people shall not be infringed.
I'm still waiting for the definition of militia, regulated, anything, that makes people not mean people.
Again, reading into the 2nd anything that sounds like only government-authorized persons may own arms runs 100% counter to the purpose of the amendment.
But in any case, I'm waiting. How does "the people" not mean "the people"?
If you don't phrase your opinion as an imperative, then neither will I.
It is my opinion that people who think a book can contain either complete literal truth or only allegory but never both are complete idiots, and in any other situation they would not believe something so obviously ridiculous. I doubt they would be baffled or alarmed at the idea of a physics text that contained literal expressions of the laws of physics, and apocryphal stories designed to illustrate concepts. It is only their anti-religious bias that makes them think this way, unless their world view really is so black and white that they think "I always lie" is actually a paradox.
Just more proof that while religion may attract those without critical thinking skills, it certainly does not have a monopoly on them.
If you're not active, or in some way military trained, or work for a local molitia (AKA police) or a private and legally licenced militia (private security) then you have no constitutionally protected rights toa firearm.
NO not "Aka" police. The police were and are a government organization. The militia was civilians coming to the aid of their states when necessary, and fundamentally consisted of every adult male, with no licensing or training required. Not that training is a bad idea, it is just not a necessity for someone to be part of the militia. Why would the 2nd Amendment even need to be said if it only applied to the police? The "right" of the armed forces and police to bear arms are already there in the Articles of the Constitution!
The proof of what was meant by the term "militia" is in the very next phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The militia consists of the people. Not the officially sanctioned and licensed security forces, not the official government police force. The People.
While any definition of "militia" that doesn't translate to "every adult (male) citizen" is inaccurate wrt to the time the Constitution was written, more to the point, there is no definition of "militia" that makes "the people" not mean "the people".
Of course this is even more obvious if you understand why the authors of the Constitution felt the 2nd Amendment was necessary. The idea that the word "militia" should be construed to mean that the government can limit gun ownership only to official government organizations runs directly counter to that intention.
But please, just explain to me how "the people" doesn't mean "the people".
When O'Connor voted to tell Florida in 2000 it couldn't recount only some of its ballots Fixed. So did she (and the Court) order them to count all the ballots? Or did she order them to stop counting, making the stated difference irrelevant?
McCain's view is the same as Bush's. Vouchers, Privitazation, etc...
Yeah, I always have to remember to pretend to be surprised when the Public School policies of someone whose explicit and stated stance is that they want public schools to go away ends up harming the public schools more than helping.
Yes, yes. All statement made in the imperative tense are the same. Thank you for pointing out the inherent irony in saying "Don't tell others what to do." Very insightful, in a way that misses the point entirely.
Also, I get a kick out of you making it out to be a free speech issue. That gave me a good laugh.
Now keep in mind a disturbing number of the populace is increasingly kook.
It's true, which is why I signed up for classes in speaking Kook at my local community college. I figured it'll be useful in the job market. It's pretty rough though, because the entire class is taught in Kook. I guess that kind of immersion is the best way to learn a new language, but it makes it hard to keep up. The prof says "Nipples turn children into Hitler" and I'm so busy trying to figure out what he meant that I miss what he said next. A buddy in the class said it was "Gays cause droughts and if they marry it causes earthquakes", which he thinks is some kind of homework assignment. And that was the first class!
Not to mention if you read his response, he attacks the florida supreme court, and claims he will get them all removed from office. His career = over.
Wow. First, he says that the Florida SC is on his side with regard to the Judge in this case not having a proper loyalty oath, and then he says he's going to get six of the SC Justices kicked off the bench for not having proper loyalty oaths...
How freaking insane do you have to be to think that your stated enemy (the Florida SC) is going to be your ally against your other enemy (Judge Tunis) on the same issue as you have with that enemy?!
The last game of the series was Castlevania: Bloodlines for the Sega Genesis, back in '94.
Then Konami started ANOTHER series with the same name, but more aptly nicknamed "Metroidvania" by some...
Are you seriously trying to knock Symphony of the Night?
I mean, I guess I can see what you're saying, as long as it comes with the further statement that "Metroidvania" is by far the better game than "Castlevania".
And I sure hope Konami doesn't listen to anyone who feels otherwise.
Which actions of JFK are you talking about since many issues JFK dealt with can be traced to Ike.
Nobody held a gun to Kennedy's head* and told him to execute Ike's plan to remove Castro. And Ike had nothing to do with fucking that plan up so badly. But since the point was you can't blame (or praise for that matter) a President today for the actions of a President 50 years ago from the same party, does it even matter?
Nothing, that's the point. But the "bad" thing I was thinking of that I can't possibly blame Obama for would be the Bay of Pigs. What did you think I mentioned Nixon for? He got us out of Vietnam, but you didn't question why I mentioned him.;)
Latest Quinnipac poll says you are incorrect. Only 33% want to withdraw all our troops (end the war immediately as Obama proposes). Its actually 65% that want to keep some troops over there in one form or another. So its completely the opposite of your statement, unless you meant "End the War by winning it with troops there".
"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
So you would have us believe that any answer to that question other than "Withdraw all of its troops" means they think we should keep whatever troops remain there until we "win"? You sure they didn't take the question to mean what should be done right now? You sure that the answer "Withdraw some" didn't mean "withdraw some now, and the rest later"?
Because this Quinnipiac survey, they directly ask the question of whether we should end the war by withdrawing troops, and 70% are in favor:
"What should the United States do in Iraq: withdraw all troops as soon as possible, or, set a timetable to withdraw troops gradually, or, keep troops in Iraq as long as needed?"
Withdraw all troops 22% Set a timetable 48 Keep troops as needed 28 DK/NA 3
Only 28% are in favor of keeping troops there as long as needed. Clearly your assumption that people saying they wanted to withdraw some troops, also wanted to keep the rest there as long as needed, was wrong. Also in this summary of surveys, when asked the even more simple question of whether they approved of the war, 67% flat out said no. And that's in a survey that contains your exact question (with the same percentages, but attributed to CNN, are you sure you aren't mixing up your surveys?).
The majority of Americans want to end the war. Not by waiting until we "win", but by ceasing this endeavor that a majority of Americans think was a bad idea in the first place. From the same link "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?", 37% yes 57% no. "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?", 63% yes, 36% no.
I'll probably get modded down for speaking an inconvenient truth to the uninformed anti-war crowd here at slashdot. But hey, silencing me doesn't change the facts on the ground that the "surge" appears to have achieved its goals at this time.
If you're modded down, it certainly won't be because you are informed and speaking the truth. Nobody who is informed would claim that a majority of Americans want to continue the war until it is "won". Hell, more than half of Americans don't even think victory is even possible ("Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?", 53% no, 40% yes).
The only goal the surge has achieved is a temporary lull in violence, mostly isolated to Baghdad, that is not sustainable. The major goals of the surge, which was to create an environment in which resolution of Iraqs many political problems could be achieved, failed miserably. As was amply demonstrated just over a month ago, the main reason violence dropped was because al Sadr voluntarily told his militia to stand down, and our deals made with Sunni militias to get them on our side fighting al Qaeda*. When the government decided it wanted to kick Sadr out, well the violence flared right up again and all those extra troops were for naught and it took a deal brokered by Iran to stop the fighting.
Anyone who knows anything about counter-insurgency would have expected the surge to "work" by decreas
Oh, really? Where are the mega-bucks coming from our new oil colony? Where's our massive new oil supply?
NNRRRRRGGHHH!
Come on, think!
The "mega-bucks" are the ones coming out of your pocket whenever you fill your tank. The oil companies are now selling gas at $120/barrel instead of $40/barrel, or $4/gal instead of $1/gal, but their cost to get that oil out of the ground hasn't changed at all!
Or look at however many $billions of tax dollars were given to Halliburton to handle everything in Iraq from military kitchens to re-building the pipelines that get blown up every other day.
And you're thinking this can't be possible because you haven't seen a dime? Wake up! The "mega-bucks" are coming from you and go to the oil companies and defense contractors. The whole Iraq war was a massive transfer of money from the taxpayers to the friends of the President, to the tune of around half a trillion dollars so far.
Unlike a Congressman, the President can't pass pork-barrel legislation to pay his buddies. He has proven that he can do a lot better than that.
Yeah, and I'd tell any of em that did it the exact same thing. I do tell them that. I know you don't seriously consider "Plenty of Christians do" an excuse for anything. And neither do I. I also don't consider "I am a Christian" to be an excuse for bigotry either.
In fact, according to a lot of them, it's not a "valid religion" anyway. Wicca is worshipping demons and Satan and all that, it's ungodly. Except when they do it, they're not being "bigoted", they're practising their religion.
No, they are being ignorant bigots. They might not think they are, but neither does the GP, hell who thinks they are being an ignorant bigot when they're being an ignorant bigot? I'm pretty sure the state of being a bigot naturally prevents that kind of self-awareness.
And yes, there are a lot of Christian bigots. I really can't stand them; they're the reason why I so often find myself having to work contrary to people's -- quite understandably acquired -- prejudices against Christians.
-- Not Wiccan. -- Different sort of Pagan/Heathen though.
And I'm a Christian, and I would never presume to tell you what your beliefs are, or that you aren't doing it right. Not the least reason being that I have no idea what they are, but hey, that obviously doesn't stop the kind of people we're talking about.
Pulling out over-night, as many seem to want, is possibly the worst thing to do. The government (and army) is nowhere near the point that they can actually control the country, and seeing the mighty american army leave like that will only help to bolster the extremists, Iran etc.
Hi. Hate to break this unhappy news to you, but the current government is fundamentally incapable of controlling the country, because it is seen as illegitimate by most of the country. Any government formed under occupation, no matter how many stained thumbs you show off, is going to be seen as thus. No matter how long we stay, that government will fall as soon as we leave. Or it will have to start being very un-Democratic in order to stay in power. Either way, it will be brutal.
Also, this entire Iraqi enterprise has bolstered Iran, and nothing we do before we leave is going to change that either. The government, and especially the army, is closely tied with Iran. The largest political party, SCIRII* was formed by Iraqi exiles living in Iran. Their militia, the Badr Brigade, has effectively transformed itself into the army. It's the same militia, but now wearing uniforms with "official" standing. Remember in that recent farce of a conflict, where the Iraqi Army was trying to push Sadr's militia out, and failed miserably? Remember how they were calling Sadr "Iran-backed" in the stories to help justify the action? Well, he is Iranian backed, but the Prime Minister's party and SCIRII are even more. So in the conflict that comes after we leave, whoever wins, it's a win for Iran.
So while we shouldn't leave instantly, we shouldn't dawdle because there isn't much point. We should start drawing down, over maybe a year, two tops, and dedicate our time remaining to all the public works projects that we have failed to finish. Maybe it'll all be blown up the day after we leave, but maybe we can at least leave a positive last impression on our way out. Sticking around trying to prevent the inevitable is just making things worse.
* Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, they call themselves something else now, without the scary "Islamic Revolution" part. Must have made the Iranian pedigree too obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
But parts of the Bible might be figurative. Including the part about the source.
Parts are figurative, but that doesn't mean it's random, and that any given sentence has an equal probability of being figurative or literal. So no.
I mean, when the Bible claims it is the word of God, maybe it means that it came entirely from the god-like part of regular old humans.
That God is an aspect of all of us and indeed of the universe itself is one interpretation of the nature of God, a subject about which He is famously terse ("I Am"). What God is precisely doesn't change whether the book is His Word.
That is the issue that any intelligent person has with people who pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are figurative.
I disagree that intelligent people think it is impossible to reason about what is figurative and what is literal, and that it is all up in the air. I think only stupid people think that. But I also don't think that's something you believe with regard to anything but the Bible (or other religious texts), meaning it's an affectation that springs from anti-religious bias.
You're not religious. You don't believe my book is divine. I get it, and that's fine. Don't transmute that into the illogical conclusion that it is therefore impossible for a believer to interpret this book much as you would any other work.
It is clearly laid out not as a right to bear arms for all citizens, but as a MEANS to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, if you are not PART OF a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then you DO NOT have a right to bear arms.
Nonsense! It is clearly laid out that the purpose of the right is to have a well regulated militia for purposes of checking the power of the government should the need arise -- yes, that's what it's for, so having the government choose who gets to have a gun runs completely contrary to that -- but it is also clearly laid out that regardless of that purpose the actual right is granted to "the people". It is "the right of the people". It's not the right of the militia, it is not the right of the people if they're in a militia (which, at least as the term was used in the 1700s, every (male) citizen is in the militia). It says as clear as day "the right of the people shall not be infringed".
The right is granted to the people. EXPLICITLY to the people. What the government has done is take away the militia, and you argue that this gives them the power to take away our ("the people's") Constitutionally given right to bear arms? No, that's backwards. If that's your logic, then the fact that I am not considered part of the militia is an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights by the government. The solution is not to take my right away. My explicitly granted right.
Here's why, specifically, Christian's don't get to pick and choose: the whole basis of the authority of the Bible is that the Bible claims the Bible is the literal word of God.
"Literal word of God" is not the same as "The word of God, to be read literally". One is describing the source, the other the interpretation.
"It was raining cats and dogs" is literally what I just typed. However the phrase itself is not to be taken literally. And unless you really think the Bible intended to claim that the Kingdom of Heaven is literally like a fig tree -- woody, deciduous, and up to ten meters tall -- then this difference should be obvious.
Fundamentalists don't understand this obvious difference, but they're stupid. You can deliberately engage in the same stupidity if you want. It doesn't make you smart.
He can only hide behind the "I'm a hero because I crashed my plane in the jungle and then made videos for the Viet Cong" angle for so long.
Hey now. Go ahead and question how heroic getting shot down really is, at least so far as whether you can base an entire Presidency upon the fact. But "made videos for the VC" is going exactly contrary to that kind of thoughtful analysis. Because in reality he was tortured until he made videos for the VC, and eventually cracking under torture does not in any way diminish his hero status (to whatever extent that may be) because any hero would crack, eventually. The human brain is simply not designed to withstand unlimited pain, and it's a relatively simple matter to inflict enough of it that anyone will say whatever you want.
Which, by the way, is why torture is really not that useful for interrogation, because that's ultimately the result you get: Them saying whatever you want them to say.
Which does bring me to a real issue I have with McCain, and that's that while I have much respect and sympathy for his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton, he lost nearly all of that the moment he allowed the door to be opened even a tiny bit for sanctioned torture by U.S. forces. There's no practical and no moral justification, and he of all people should know that. Seemed to know that and say as much. That he would sacrifice that principle just to fit in with his party and to boost his "tough on terror" cred (as if he needs to) is very, very disappointing.
But that's been the trend since the last election cycle, everything I liked about McCain has been slipping away.
No, the crux of the debate is the word 'people', because that is who the amendment explicitly gives the right to.
The right of the people shall not be infringed.
I'm still waiting for the definition of militia, regulated, anything, that makes people not mean people.
Again, reading into the 2nd anything that sounds like only government-authorized persons may own arms runs 100% counter to the purpose of the amendment.
But in any case, I'm waiting. How does "the people" not mean "the people"?
If you don't phrase your opinion as an imperative, then neither will I.
It is my opinion that people who think a book can contain either complete literal truth or only allegory but never both are complete idiots, and in any other situation they would not believe something so obviously ridiculous. I doubt they would be baffled or alarmed at the idea of a physics text that contained literal expressions of the laws of physics, and apocryphal stories designed to illustrate concepts. It is only their anti-religious bias that makes them think this way, unless their world view really is so black and white that they think "I always lie" is actually a paradox.
Just more proof that while religion may attract those without critical thinking skills, it certainly does not have a monopoly on them.
If you're not active, or in some way military trained, or work for a local molitia (AKA police) or a private and legally licenced militia (private security) then you have no constitutionally protected rights toa firearm.
NO not "Aka" police. The police were and are a government organization. The militia was civilians coming to the aid of their states when necessary, and fundamentally consisted of every adult male, with no licensing or training required. Not that training is a bad idea, it is just not a necessity for someone to be part of the militia. Why would the 2nd Amendment even need to be said if it only applied to the police? The "right" of the armed forces and police to bear arms are already there in the Articles of the Constitution!
The proof of what was meant by the term "militia" is in the very next phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The militia consists of the people. Not the officially sanctioned and licensed security forces, not the official government police force. The People.
While any definition of "militia" that doesn't translate to "every adult (male) citizen" is inaccurate wrt to the time the Constitution was written, more to the point, there is no definition of "militia" that makes "the people" not mean "the people".
Of course this is even more obvious if you understand why the authors of the Constitution felt the 2nd Amendment was necessary. The idea that the word "militia" should be construed to mean that the government can limit gun ownership only to official government organizations runs directly counter to that intention.
But please, just explain to me how "the people" doesn't mean "the people".
"Either believe it all or none of it."
"Stop telling [anyone] what is a valid way to view and practice their religion"
HAND.
No, genius, pay attention. He's the one who said others don't get to form their own opinion on their own religion, I said that's not true.
Unless you really think that it's hypocritical to say "Stop telling others what to do", which would make you an idiot, then you're an idiot.
Right.
McCain's view is the same as Bush's. Vouchers, Privitazation, etc...
Yeah, I always have to remember to pretend to be surprised when the Public School policies of someone whose explicit and stated stance is that they want public schools to go away ends up harming the public schools more than helping.
Yes, yes. All statement made in the imperative tense are the same. Thank you for pointing out the inherent irony in saying "Don't tell others what to do." Very insightful, in a way that misses the point entirely.
Also, I get a kick out of you making it out to be a free speech issue. That gave me a good laugh.
Now keep in mind a disturbing number of the populace is increasingly kook.
It's true, which is why I signed up for classes in speaking Kook at my local community college. I figured it'll be useful in the job market. It's pretty rough though, because the entire class is taught in Kook. I guess that kind of immersion is the best way to learn a new language, but it makes it hard to keep up. The prof says "Nipples turn children into Hitler" and I'm so busy trying to figure out what he meant that I miss what he said next. A buddy in the class said it was "Gays cause droughts and if they marry it causes earthquakes", which he thinks is some kind of homework assignment. And that was the first class!
Not to mention if you read his response, he attacks the florida supreme court, and claims he will get them all removed from office.
His career = over.
Wow. First, he says that the Florida SC is on his side with regard to the Judge in this case not having a proper loyalty oath, and then he says he's going to get six of the SC Justices kicked off the bench for not having proper loyalty oaths...
How freaking insane do you have to be to think that your stated enemy (the Florida SC) is going to be your ally against your other enemy (Judge Tunis) on the same issue as you have with that enemy?!
Any government formed under occupation IN IRAQ will be seen as illegitimate.
Happy now?
The last game of the series was Castlevania: Bloodlines for the Sega Genesis, back in '94.
Then Konami started ANOTHER series with the same name, but more aptly nicknamed "Metroidvania" by some...
Are you seriously trying to knock Symphony of the Night?
I mean, I guess I can see what you're saying, as long as it comes with the further statement that "Metroidvania" is by far the better game than "Castlevania".
And I sure hope Konami doesn't listen to anyone who feels otherwise.
Which actions of JFK are you talking about since many issues JFK dealt with can be traced to Ike.
Nobody held a gun to Kennedy's head* and told him to execute Ike's plan to remove Castro. And Ike had nothing to do with fucking that plan up so badly. But since the point was you can't blame (or praise for that matter) a President today for the actions of a President 50 years ago from the same party, does it even matter?
* Or maybe they did! dun dun dun!
What does JFK have to do with anything?
;)
Nothing, that's the point. But the "bad" thing I was thinking of that I can't possibly blame Obama for would be the Bay of Pigs. What did you think I mentioned Nixon for? He got us out of Vietnam, but you didn't question why I mentioned him.
"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
So you would have us believe that any answer to that question other than "Withdraw all of its troops" means they think we should keep whatever troops remain there until we "win"? You sure they didn't take the question to mean what should be done right now? You sure that the answer "Withdraw some" didn't mean "withdraw some now, and the rest later"?
Because this Quinnipiac survey, they directly ask the question of whether we should end the war by withdrawing troops, and 70% are in favor:
"What should the United States do in Iraq: withdraw all troops as soon as possible, or, set a timetable to withdraw troops gradually, or, keep troops in Iraq as long as needed?"
Withdraw all troops 22%
Set a timetable 48
Keep troops as needed 28
DK/NA 3
Only 28% are in favor of keeping troops there as long as needed. Clearly your assumption that people saying they wanted to withdraw some troops, also wanted to keep the rest there as long as needed, was wrong. Also in this summary of surveys, when asked the even more simple question of whether they approved of the war, 67% flat out said no. And that's in a survey that contains your exact question (with the same percentages, but attributed to CNN, are you sure you aren't mixing up your surveys?).
The majority of Americans want to end the war. Not by waiting until we "win", but by ceasing this endeavor that a majority of Americans think was a bad idea in the first place. From the same link "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?", 37% yes 57% no. "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?", 63% yes, 36% no.
I'll probably get modded down for speaking an inconvenient truth to the uninformed anti-war crowd here at slashdot. But hey, silencing me doesn't change the facts on the ground that the "surge" appears to have achieved its goals at this time.
If you're modded down, it certainly won't be because you are informed and speaking the truth. Nobody who is informed would claim that a majority of Americans want to continue the war until it is "won". Hell, more than half of Americans don't even think victory is even possible ("Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?", 53% no, 40% yes).
The only goal the surge has achieved is a temporary lull in violence, mostly isolated to Baghdad, that is not sustainable. The major goals of the surge, which was to create an environment in which resolution of Iraqs many political problems could be achieved, failed miserably. As was amply demonstrated just over a month ago, the main reason violence dropped was because al Sadr voluntarily told his militia to stand down, and our deals made with Sunni militias to get them on our side fighting al Qaeda*. When the government decided it wanted to kick Sadr out, well the violence flared right up again and all those extra troops were for naught and it took a deal brokered by Iran to stop the fighting.
Anyone who knows anything about counter-insurgency would have expected the surge to "work" by decreas
Yeah, that sounds like an even better choice than my improve-Obama's-foreign-policy-chops VP candidate, Bill Richardson. I like it.
Oh, really? Where are the mega-bucks coming from our new oil colony? Where's our massive new oil supply?
NNRRRRRGGHHH!
Come on, think!
The "mega-bucks" are the ones coming out of your pocket whenever you fill your tank. The oil companies are now selling gas at $120/barrel instead of $40/barrel, or $4/gal instead of $1/gal, but their cost to get that oil out of the ground hasn't changed at all!
Or look at however many $billions of tax dollars were given to Halliburton to handle everything in Iraq from military kitchens to re-building the pipelines that get blown up every other day.
And you're thinking this can't be possible because you haven't seen a dime? Wake up! The "mega-bucks" are coming from you and go to the oil companies and defense contractors. The whole Iraq war was a massive transfer of money from the taxpayers to the friends of the President, to the tune of around half a trillion dollars so far.
Unlike a Congressman, the President can't pass pork-barrel legislation to pay his buddies. He has proven that he can do a lot better than that.
and my personal favourite, the neorhino party. You can find the rest here.
From the Wiki page on the neorhino party:
"The party has also proposed a mandatory national gas barbecue registry and a guaranteed weekly orgasm."
Holy shit! I'm moving to Canada and voting for those guys! Wait... before I move, there was something in the article just before that, what was it...
"It promises, like its predecessor, not to keep any of its promises if elected. "
Ah, those bastards!
Why? Plenty of Christians do.
Yeah, and I'd tell any of em that did it the exact same thing. I do tell them that. I know you don't seriously consider "Plenty of Christians do" an excuse for anything. And neither do I. I also don't consider "I am a Christian" to be an excuse for bigotry either.
In fact, according to a lot of them, it's not a "valid religion" anyway. Wicca is worshipping demons and Satan and all that, it's ungodly. Except when they do it, they're not being "bigoted", they're practising their religion.
No, they are being ignorant bigots. They might not think they are, but neither does the GP, hell who thinks they are being an ignorant bigot when they're being an ignorant bigot? I'm pretty sure the state of being a bigot naturally prevents that kind of self-awareness.
And yes, there are a lot of Christian bigots. I really can't stand them; they're the reason why I so often find myself having to work contrary to people's -- quite understandably acquired -- prejudices against Christians.
-- Not Wiccan.
-- Different sort of Pagan/Heathen though.
And I'm a Christian, and I would never presume to tell you what your beliefs are, or that you aren't doing it right. Not the least reason being that I have no idea what they are, but hey, that obviously doesn't stop the kind of people we're talking about.
Go tell the religious nutjobs that. And don't worry, you can find them in any religion that suits your taste.
Oh believe me, I do whenever given the opportunity.
That's part of why the GP pisses me off so much -- he's acting just like a fundamentalist, but of a religion he isn't even part of!
Pulling out over-night, as many seem to want, is possibly the worst thing to do. The government (and army) is nowhere near the point that they can actually control the country, and seeing the mighty american army leave like that will only help to bolster the extremists, Iran etc.
Hi. Hate to break this unhappy news to you, but the current government is fundamentally incapable of controlling the country, because it is seen as illegitimate by most of the country. Any government formed under occupation, no matter how many stained thumbs you show off, is going to be seen as thus. No matter how long we stay, that government will fall as soon as we leave. Or it will have to start being very un-Democratic in order to stay in power. Either way, it will be brutal.
Also, this entire Iraqi enterprise has bolstered Iran, and nothing we do before we leave is going to change that either. The government, and especially the army, is closely tied with Iran. The largest political party, SCIRII* was formed by Iraqi exiles living in Iran. Their militia, the Badr Brigade, has effectively transformed itself into the army. It's the same militia, but now wearing uniforms with "official" standing. Remember in that recent farce of a conflict, where the Iraqi Army was trying to push Sadr's militia out, and failed miserably? Remember how they were calling Sadr "Iran-backed" in the stories to help justify the action? Well, he is Iranian backed, but the Prime Minister's party and SCIRII are even more. So in the conflict that comes after we leave, whoever wins, it's a win for Iran.
So while we shouldn't leave instantly, we shouldn't dawdle because there isn't much point. We should start drawing down, over maybe a year, two tops, and dedicate our time remaining to all the public works projects that we have failed to finish. Maybe it'll all be blown up the day after we leave, but maybe we can at least leave a positive last impression on our way out. Sticking around trying to prevent the inevitable is just making things worse.
* Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, they call themselves something else now, without the scary "Islamic Revolution" part. Must have made the Iranian pedigree too obvious.