Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

[GaryC 7]

As I said very early on in the thread: Context is a beautiful thing.

And your point (if any) is? This still applies. Or do you mean that unless something fits exactly into the topic at hand it means nothing because of your obsession for "context".

[no name 1]

Therefore, IMO this poll is at bust flawed, at worst downright misleading so why would I want to draw any conclusions about the makeup or policies of the Democratic party(or the Republican Party) based on it?

This bears repeating....

[Marilyn. 340]

the question doesn't say, do you want the US to fail?....

it says "do you personally think the world would be better off if the US lost the war??"

I think some people just want it to end no matter how it ends, so that all the soldiers over there can come home...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I said very early on in the thread: Context is a beautiful thing.

And your point (if any) is? This still applies. Or do you mean that unless something fits exactly into the topic at hand it means nothing because of your obsession for "context".

What still applies? That what you presented Clinton to have said didn't really mean what one would have thought it meant by reading just what you presented? That the context in which the remark was made provides some valuable information and changes how one perceives the statement that was made even though the satement itself still is the very same? Get my drift?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again the use of relative terminology - 'lose' is rather open to interpretation. I'd be rather surprised if those people who answered 'yes' really mean by that they support AQ and its extremist agenda.

[GaryC 7]

As I said very early on in the thread: Context is a beautiful thing.

And your point (if any) is? This still applies. Or do you mean that unless something fits exactly into the topic at hand it means nothing because of your obsession for "context".

What still applies? That what you presented Clinton to have said didn't really mean what one would have thought it meant by reading just what you presented? That the context in which the remark was made provides some valuable information and changes how one perceives the statement that was made even though the satement itself still is the very same? Get my drift?

The context didn't change the idea. To hate the government or to hate America precludes patriotism.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know who wants to the US to fail against the threat of terrorism, I only know people who aren't sure that the government is completely correct in some of it's ways of going about it. However, if there are people who want terrorism to win, to change the US into what? A Muslim regime, than no, I don't suppose they are very patriotic, especially if they resort to violent means to make this change. However, I am totally unconvinced that 11% of Americans fit into this category, or that Democrats are more likely to think like this.

[GaryC 7]

Again the use of relative terminology - 'lose' is rather open to interpretation. I'd be rather surprised if those people who answered 'yes' really mean by that they support AQ and its extremist agenda.

Do a "what if" with yourself. What would happen if America loses. That is what these people would want if we lose.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said very early on in the thread: Context is a beautiful thing.

And your point (if any) is? This still applies. Or do you mean that unless something fits exactly into the topic at hand it means nothing because of your obsession for "context".

What still applies? That what you presented Clinton to have said didn't really mean what one would have thought it meant by reading just what you presented? That the context in which the remark was made provides some valuable information and changes how one perceives the statement that was made even though the satement itself still is the very same? Get my drift?

The context didn't change the idea. To hate the government or to hate America precludes patriotism.

No. It doesn't.

Again the use of relative terminology - 'lose' is rather open to interpretation. I'd be rather surprised if those people who answered 'yes' really mean by that they support AQ and its extremist agenda.

Do a "what if" with yourself. What would happen if America loses. That is what these people would want if we lose.

I'm sorry - but again how can you possibly know this?

[no name 1]

Again the use of relative terminology - 'lose' is rather open to interpretation. I'd be rather surprised if those people who answered 'yes' really mean by that they support AQ and its extremist agenda.

Do a "what if" with yourself. What would happen if America loses. That is what these people would want if we lose.

My god, Gary, you have NO WAY of knowing this!!

[Ban Hammer 14,200]

Therefore, IMO this poll is at bust flawed, at worst downright misleading so why would I want to draw any conclusions about the makeup or policies of the Democratic party(or the Republican Party) based on it?

This bears repeating....

be a follower, not a leader

[Jaseball 0]

How exactly do you 'win,' a war against 'terrorism?' It's on the same vein as winning a 'war,' against 'drugs,' because there really is no end and there never will be. There will always be terrorists. We can't wipe them out. It just takes one nut job with a plan and time to create a terrorist attack.

Terrorists exist because they believe in concepts and ideals totally foreign to the average American. Drugs exist because of the demand and profit from an endless stream of users. In order to 'win,' here you have to change the ideals and perceptions of possible terrorists or eliminate the demand for drugs by users. Both are far easier said than done.

The correct idea is the strengthen our borders, provide better screening, take care of our domestic issues, compete economically, strengthen our world image and this we'll reduce the hatred against the country, while at the same time preparing and being ready for domestic terrorist threats and plots.

For the 'war,' aspect we need to plan our exit strategy from Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly define our goals, fix what we can, teach what we can, and get out. Don't get stuck in a costly quagmire with no end in sight, which is exactly where we are now.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree with what Marlyn said, viz a viz this pole. The majority who answered in this way are probably in the 'get the troops home' regardless camp. I don't agree with that, but I don't believe it's unpatriotic to think it either.

[GaryC 7]

As I said very early on in the thread: Context is a beautiful thing.

And your point (if any) is? This still applies. Or do you mean that unless something fits exactly into the topic at hand it means nothing because of your obsession for "context".

What still applies? That what you presented Clinton to have said didn't really mean what one would have thought it meant by reading just what you presented? That the context in which the remark was made provides some valuable information and changes how one perceives the statement that was made even though the satement itself still is the very same? Get my drift?

The context didn't change the idea. To hate the government or to hate America precludes patriotism.

No. It doesn't.

Again the use of relative terminology - 'lose' is rather open to interpretation. I'd be rather surprised if those people who answered 'yes' really mean by that they support AQ and its extremist agenda.

Do a "what if" with yourself. What would happen if America loses. That is what these people would want if we lose.

I'm sorry - but again how can you possibly know this?

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

Edited October 8, 2007 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How exactly do you 'win,' a war against 'terrorism?' It's on the same vein as winning a 'war,' against 'drugs,' because there really is no end and there never will be. There will always be terrorists. We can't wipe them out. It just takes one nut job with a plan and time to create a terrorist attack.

Terrorists exist because they believe in concepts and ideals totally foreign to the average American. Drugs exist because of the demand and profit from an endless stream of users. In order to 'win,' here you have to change the ideals and perceptions of possible terrorists or eliminate the demand for drugs by users. Both are far easier said than done.

The correct idea is the strengthen our borders, provide better screening, take care of our domestic issues, compete economically, strengthen our world image and this we'll reduce the hatred against the country, while at the same time preparing and being ready for domestic terrorist threats and plots.

For the 'war,' aspect we need to plan our exit strategy from Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly define our goals, fix what we can, teach what we can, and get out. Don't get stuck in a costly quagmire with no end in sight, which is exactly where we are now.

None of which is 'unpatriotic'.