61% of Americans want troops home in a year, 24% want it now

[bascule]

That's too bad. So it's more of a 60/40 split then an 85/15 split?

 

So is it 24% of the total who want to pull out immediately, or 24% of that 61%?

 

Wow, so much confusion caused by my poorly stated topic. My apologies.

 

To quote the breakdown on the page's sidebar: As of February 13th...

 

"When it comes to the War in Iraq, the U.S. should..."

 

24% - withdraw now

37% - bring the troops home in a year

34% - stay

5% - undecided?

 

Which they're apparently boiling down into:

 

61% - bring the troops home in a year or less

34% - stay

5% - undecided?

[ParanoiA]

That's generally how a small "defenseless" country can win a defensive war against a far more powerful enemy. It would have been far worse if Saddam had gotten away.

 

No kidding, it worked for us against the British.

[ecoli]

No kidding, it worked for us against the British.

 

 

Thanks France!

 

(ugg, france)

[Lance]

Does anybody actually believe the US is going to risk pulling out ALL troops anytime in the near future?

[iNow]

Because you capitalized the word "ALL," I'll say no.

[Pangloss]

Does anybody actually believe the US is going to risk pulling out ALL troops anytime in the near future?

 

I think that's what many folks here would like to see, and some are willing to state such outright. They have some valid points regarding futility and security impact, which I feel are countered by legitimate disagreement over those two issues, plus the responsibility I feel we've incurred to help Iraqis get back on their feet. But I think it's fair to say that both sides have legitimate concerns.

 

But realistically, I don't think anyone here actually believes that all troops are coming home immediately (i.e. early 2009) under most election scenarios. My personal opinion is that the level of and timeline of withdrawl will be largely the same regardless of whom we elect this fall, because both sides have put so much emphasis on paying attention to boots-on-the-ground analysis.

[ecoli]

I think that's what many folks here would like to see, and some are willing to state such outright. They have some valid points regarding futility and security impact, which I feel are countered by legitimate disagreement over those two issues, plus the responsibility I feel we've incurred to help Iraqis get back on their feet. But I think it's fair to say that both sides have legitimate concerns.

 

But realistically, I don't think anyone here actually believes that all troops are coming home immediately (i.e. early 2009) under most election scenarios. My personal opinion is that the level of and timeline of withdrawl will be largely the same regardless of whom we elect this fall, because both sides have put so much emphasis on paying attention to boots-on-the-ground analysis.

 

I feel that there are differences btw the democrats and McCain. McCain has pretty much said that he will treat Iraq like we treat S. Korea... keep troops there and treat it as an overseas base for an indefinite period of time.

 

I reject this proposal, and will possibly vote for a Democrat in 2008 for this reason.

[Pangloss]

You're welcome to think that, of course. My personal opinion is that Clinton and Obama will also keep troops there indefinitely. They're just not going to say so.

[ecoli]

You're welcome to think that, of course. My personal opinion is that Clinton and Obama will also keep troops there indefinitely. They're just not going to say so.

I agree with that too. I guess I'll just have to take that risk if a decent third party candidate doesn't make an apperance.

[Pangloss]

I agree with that too. I guess I'll just have to take that risk if a decent third party candidate doesn't make an apperance.

 

A fact which will make McCain applaud, I'm sure. This is why Obama's treading such a narrow path, here.

 

I wonder if MoveOn.org has ever withdrawn an endorsement.