Does Imperial Washington even care that Americans never wanted the Iraq war?

Question

You would think, in a country that routinely lectures others about democracy, that the government would at least notice when 70% of the country opposes its policy.

But the lies go on, and the war goes on, in blissful ignorance of the wishes of the American people.

ruth, in a democracy, "politicizing" things is a GOOD thing, because it reflects a real difference of opinion among citizens that representative governments are supposed to care about.

Answer 1

This government is "of the government, for the government, by the government"

Power to the government.

There!
Satisfied...?

Answer 2

because of the fact many people think of all Iraqis are efficiently terrorists and for this reason have not have been given any sympathy for them. no longer all people of course, yet a massive minority. i'm going to continuously remember approximately the sinking feeling I felt interior the 90s while those scud missiles have been embarked on Iraq and while they released i could ask your self the place they could land and how many undesirable harmless people have been approximately to die. i could never watch those computing device photos the place you will discover them aiming at goals the two. i understand a lot of them right away targetted the enemy - even even with the shown fact that it regarded too very like a working laptop or computing device interest - different than with real people. Made me experience ill. Edit: There you're - the guy above me has proved my element. Many people do no longer make a huge distinction between "civilian" and "terrorist". in lots of circumstances that's not their fault - that's what their media tell them. considering a million/2 of people do no longer even very own a passport, or have ever travelled in a foreign country - they actually do no longer understand very lots correct to something of the international.

Answer 3

In its present state, the US government had become a virtual dictatorship. Just a month ago, I've seen on TV when GW Bush and then later, presidential spokesman Tony Snow issued statements that said "Public opinion doesn't matter to us. We will continue to pursue our mission in Iraq, no matter how unpopular this war may become".

Take that from a president who embarked on invading another soverign nation, on the supposed notion of spreading democracy in the Middle East.

Now, that same president is refusing to listen to the vast majority of the American people's voices. He even subverted the US constitution and enacted laws that curtailed civil rights and liberties. Were all of these his ideals of a democracy?. When the sentiments of the few prevails over the sentiments of the majority, can you call that a democracy?. That is not democracy, but a blatant mockery of democracy.

Answer 4

From the historical accounts I have read, middle America did not want WWII, either. Middle America is busy pursuing whatever their version is of the American dream.

That's why we vote for representatives and a President. So they make the tough decisions. And that's why they get the big bucks.

I didn't want to go. But when our nation, Democrats included, voted to go, I supported our nation's right to do it. I still do.

But while middle America is screaming about wanting the war to end, Democrats are capitalizing on the sentiment and doing nothing real. And it's tearing the nation apart at the seams.

ADDED: The greatest injustice of modern public education is that our children have been told the US is a Democracy. This is fallacious. We are and have been, since day one, a Constitutional Republic (a Democratic-Republic if you prefer that term). Our nation is governed by our 3 branches. We the people get a vote and a voice and we have been using our voice to spew trash.

Answer 5

Hey, it's funny how democrats suddenly 'politicized' this war when in fact, it's Bush's 'politicized' war. He and his closed door politicians insisted on it, went to great lengths to get the congressional/UN by force, ok on it,even lied about aspects of the reasoning for it, but didn't scope out an exit plan or figure on the backlash of disgruntled and dissappoined Americans with the actualities of it. In other words, the President didn't have the first clue about going to, engaging in and finishing a war of any kind. Now it's going to be up to another president to figure out a way to get America out of this mess and hopefully not have to pay damages to Iraqies everywhere.

example

""WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If he knew then what he knows now, he might have made some different decisions before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters Friday.


Outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace says he now thinks more troops were needed at the war's start.

"One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi Army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation," Gen. Peter Pace said.

But "they disintegrated in the face of the coalition's first several weeks of combat, so they weren't here," Pace said.

Had he known that would happen, he would have recommended more troops be sent at the outset of the Iraq war, he said.""


But, they DID know, they just won't admit that it were liberals and conservatives had TOLD them this was necessary and the it was a fools errand in the first place, years BEFORE they rode down all cocky on Iraq. Excusifying is all it is. Plain and Simple.Don't believe me, ask GHW Bush.

Answer 6

obviously not, as many Congressmen have admitted to not even reading any earmarks on bills before voting for them.

If they can't even do that part of their job right, why would they have chosen to vote against invading Iraq?

Do Congressmen even read the letters and emails of the American people, saying what they stand for? I would say in most cases, they don't.

They're too busy wanting their own earmarks, about issues that somehow concern themselves, to pass through.

Answer 7

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Answer 8

That number is a very biased number. The questions on surveys only allow a choice of four answers at the most,
Very satisfied
satisfied
unsatisfied
very unsatisfied

Even with the bias those numbers did not appear until a year and a half ago. At the time we entered the war the American people were at 90% approval.

Answer 9

Well 70% of Americans supported the war when we went in.

I still support it. What is strange is that only 14% of our military consider itself to be Democrats.

So why should the military even care what Democrats think? They don't serve. All they do is call our troops too lazy and stupid to do well in school so they got 'stuck in Iraq', they don't support General Petraeus, the don't support the mission, they don't support the Commander in Chief, they rush to guilty judgements on any soldier accused of a crime in Iraq (Haditha, anyone?), accuse our soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi's, and spout the enemy's propaganda - yet they somehow still claim to support the troops.

It seems like the Dems are the ones who are lying when they say they support the troops (or America).

Answer 10

the ppl n so call "Imperial Washington " rnt allowed 2 vote, cuz its said tht if they vote they will have more power.