Funny how republicans think different...

http://news.aol.com/article/afghan-war-more-important-public-says/109429

I found this interesting that republicans and democrats view this so differently.

I suspect it is because republicans are trying to justify bush's actions in their own minds.

But maybe there is a different reason.

Anyone else got any ideas why they are so different?

Here's a question for you Sherm and you can even add one of your polls you're so fond of.

Which country do you think it is more important to leave in the hands of a stable, secure government and now allow chaos and civil war to break out on the departure of American forces?

I'd be interested in your answer.

Ok but I will need to start a new thread because you cannot do a poll in a reply.

Only in the initial post.

You need to try again because you FUBAR'ed the other one up.

shermangeneral wrote:http://news.aol.com/article/afghan-war-more-important-public-says/109429

I found this interesting that republicans and democrats view this so differently.

I suspect it is because republicans are trying to justify bush's actions in their own minds.

But maybe there is a different reason.

Anyone else got any ideas why they are so different?

It shows that opinion polls are no way to guide foreign policy. If Republicans feel one way and Democrats another, one has to ask frankly if anyone knows anything. As a Republican identifier, I don't know that I can make any pronouncements as to which front is more important (or more detrimental). If even 10% of those who indicated a "preference" could name the leaders of each country I would be amazed. That they are basing their views (it would seem) on party preference rather than any kind of coherent view of isolation vs. intervention, preemption vs. defensive war, pacifism vs. militarism, or what have you, shows how, well, unfortunately ignorant the public is.

Give me a good, honest, thoughtful debate on whether we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't give a poll that betrays people are doing little more than following their flawed shepherds.

Give me a good, honest, thoughtful debate on whether we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Don't give a poll that betrays people are doing little more than following their flawed shepherds.

Precisely.

Well that is all well and good but it does not address the question.

Why do republicans believe Iraq more important and Dems believe Afghanistan more important?

Why is Afghanistan more important to you Sherm? Justice?

Ok, what should we do then if OBL heads into Pakistan? and waht about Afghanistan then?

It is not Afghanistan per se, Aaron.

It's just that that is where he is.

If he goes to Iran or Iraq I would still say go get him.

And world opinion would support us in that.

But world opinion does not support our occupation of Iraq and/or taking their oil.

And if we follow him wherever he goes as you suggest, we're going to be doing a hell of a lot of fighting and a lot more dying then there currently is in either country. Are you prepared for that?

Neither Pakistan nor Iran will fold as quickly as Afghanistan did and neither country is going to set by and allow our troops operate without interference.

And if we follow him wherever he goes as you suggest, we're going to be doing a hell of a lot of fighting and a lot more dying then there currently is in either country.

Oh boy, you think that guy is really something, don't you? With a cheering section that includes Aaron, who needs Al Jazeera?

If history has taught us anything, if anything in this life is certain, it's that you can kill anybody." Michael Corleone, The Godfather II

We don't need massive numbers of troops invading another country to kill OBL.

ziggy wrote:

And if we follow him wherever he goes as you suggest, we're going to be doing a hell of a lot of fighting and a lot more dying then there currently is in either country.

Oh boy, you think that guy is really something, don't you? With a cheering section that includes Aaron, who needs Al Jazeera?

OBL or Al Qaeda is not going to do the killing Frank. In Iraq it is insurgents, remnants of many political factions all fighting for control along with factions of terrorist organizations we are fighting. Well, that is who it was before the surge worked. In Afghanistan, it is remnants of the Taliban with a little assistance from Al Qaeda.

In Iran or Pakistan, it will be each country’s military. Are you prepared to take that on Frank?

I agree with Stephanie. A brigade of Special Forces supported by air superiority and naval bombardments would be sufficient if OBL is truly the goal.

I agree with Stephanie. A brigade of Special Forces supported by air superiority and naval bombardments would be sufficient if OBL is truly the goal.

I agree with you and Stephanie on this.

If I misunderstood your other statement re: a hell of a lot of fighting, I apologize.

That tends to be the republican mindset zig.

Just barge in and take over and occupy the country.

When a quick surgical operation would get the job done a lot quicker.

Aren't you the one advocating to take all the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan Sherm? Seems to me it's you that's for occupying that country.

Well aaron you really need to start paying attention.

I did not propose to occupy Afghanistan.

I advocated going after bin Ladin and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11.

I realize to the republican mindset that means an invasion and occupation.

But not to me.

It's been clearly shown that a lot of troops are not needed to go after OBL so why do we need to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, which you've supported.

Stephanie wrote:If history has taught us anything, if anything in this life is certain, it's that you can kill anybody." Michael Corleone, The Godfather II

We don't need massive numbers of troops invading another country to kill OBL.

Then how do you propose that it be done?

Other countries are not like the US, ....... they don't take kindly to foreigners invading their turf.

.

At this point, I certainly don't think a massive amount of troops infused into Afghanistan is going to do any good. We've been running around over there for 7 years and we still haven't caught him. I don't think increasing our resources in that country just to find a figurehead who's hiding in caves is a smart thing to do. A brigade of Special Forces, air superiority and satellite technology will get the job done, imo.

shermangeneral wrote:Well aaron you really need to start paying attention.

I did not propose to occupy Afghanistan.

I advocated going after bin Ladin and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11.

I realize to the republican mindset that means an invasion and occupation.

But not to me.

Well, Sherm, then what does it mean? Does it mean indiscriminate bombing a la Kosovo?

shermangeneral wrote:Well that is all well and good but it does not address the question.

Why do republicans believe Iraq more important and Dems believe Afghanistan more important?

It absolutely addresses the question, Sherm. The average Republican cannot show you Iraq on a map, and neither can the average Democrat identify Afghanistan. The average partisan of either stripe could not tell you the leaders of both countries. The Republicans are told by Republican leaders and by talkshow hosts that they like that the war in Iraq is good, and the Dems are told by Democratic leaders and the MSM and patently left media that the war in Afghanistan should be paid better attention to (of course, when you then ask just what that means, they never tell you--if it means a ground occupation, well, hmmm, hypocrisy?).

Anyway I digress. It is obvious that the average American of any persuasion simply isn't basing his or her opinion on the war on anything but regurgitation of propaganda from people they like. My proof of this is that almost no one is debating under just what conditions war is permissible, or moral, or wise, but rather each side has resorted to meaningless platitudes of no value in preventing a future war overseas (or encouraging one, if the war in Iraq is wise).

The average anti-war argument has precious little do with, say, pacifism or just war theory. It is reduced to "Bush lied" or "Halliburton." Such a movement cannot possibly do any good preventing a future war which Obama will almost certainly lead us into, just as Clinton and Bush before him.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:If history has taught us anything, if anything in this life is certain, it's that you can kill anybody." Michael Corleone, The Godfather II

We don't need massive numbers of troops invading another country to kill OBL.

Then how do you propose that it be done?

Other countries are not like the US, ....... they don't take kindly to foreigners invading their turf.

.

Step 1 is to find him.

Until US officials actually know where he is, there is no sense in invading and bombing anywhere. Is he in Afghanistan? Special forces should be deployed to his location. Is he in Pakistan? Is he in Saudi Arabia? Is he in London or Paris or Topeka for cyring out loud?

I can't answer that question for you because I, Stephanie, do not know where he is. Maybe President Bush knows, more likely he does not. How to get him depends upon where he is found to be. It makes no sense to escalate violence in Afghanistan and chase the Taliban into Pakistan if the goal is to capture or kill OBL because if he is in Afghanistan we certainly don't know where in Afghanistan he is or he would be captured or dead by now.

All those crack intelligence super-agencies that Bush relied on to be so sure that Iraq had WMDs, and that told Donnie Rumsfeld where they were, should surely be able to locate a single guy like Bin Laden.