Bush says night is day

[DrChinese]

Bush says that the violence in Iraq proves his strategy is working. And night is day, too, I guess.

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/965704.asp):

"THE MORE PROGRESS we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that’s available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become," Bush told reporters at the White House.

He said those who are continuing to engage in violence "can’t stand the thought of a free society. They hate freedom. They love terror. They love to try to create fear and chaos."

But Bush, sitting next to civilian U.S. Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer in the Oval Office, said he remains "even more determined to work with the Iraqi people" to restore peace and civility to the wartorn nation.

Said Bremer: "We’ll have rough days ... but the overall thrust is in the right direction and the good days outnumber the bad days."

Talk about living in la-la land. According to Bush, the worse it looks in Iraq, the better it really is. Oh, and the better it looks, the better it really is too. As we all know, who needs facts when spin works just as well?

U.S. out of Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

U.S. out of Iraq.

Translation: let the extremists win. Let the people who attack red cross buildings drive out anyone trying to help Iraq, so it can fall back into the hands of the worst of humanity. In other words, abandon Iraq, because you never cared about it in the first place, so why would it matter to you if it spirals into total chaos? What, you think people who attack red cross buildings are going to be content to ONLY see us leave, and won't try to establish their own extremist government by violence? Talk about living in la-la land.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Translation: let the extremists win.
...

You mean that Bush (U.S.) is not the current extremist in Iraq?

[Crossbow]

Since Bush does not bother to do his own research, he is very dependent upon his staff to provide him with correct information. Therefore, if his staff provides him with bad information then one should not be surprised when he boldly parrots that bad information.

It seems like the only way to introduce new data to Bush is to introduce a new staff. However, Bush does not like changing his staff so I expect the bad flow of information will continue unless the noise level becomes so loud that it can be heard inside the Oval Office.

Go figure!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

You mean that Bush (U.S.) is not the current extremist in Iraq?

Are you so stupid as to actually need to ask that question? Some people load up an ambulance with explosives, drive it to a red cross facility, and blow it up. You tell me, is that an extremist, or is that somehow justified resistance to the occupation? What do YOU think the goal of such actions is, worm?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Are you so stupid as to actually need to ask that question? Some people load up an ambulance with explosives, drive it to a red cross facility, and blow it up. You tell me, is that an extremist, or is that somehow justified resistance to the occupation? What do YOU think the goal of such actions is, worm?

What are you going to do, convince him that day is actually day? Good luck.

Extreme measures don't equate to "extremism." It's not like we're rounding up Iraqi civilians and executing/torturing them without trial.

That was Saddam's game.

Our endgame is a democratic nation. Saddam's endgame was more and more Saddam. Tell me who's the extremist here?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Translation: let the extremists win.

What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us! Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us? After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Since Bush does not bother to do his own research, he is very dependent upon his staff to provide him with correct information. Therefore, if his staff provides him with bad information then one should not be surprised when he boldly parrots that bad information.

Parrot...good analogy! So there is a bird in the Bush...

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DrChinese


What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us! Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us? After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

Faulty analogy. What we're doing in Iraq is in direct contradiction to the previous policy. So were we wrong then, or now? It can't be both.

We propped up the Shah, which was not only morally wrong but impractical. We're doing the same in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them as well, or is the economic reason for that support justified?

You drop a lot of provocative (in the rabble-rousing, as opposed to insightful way), but never offer any solutions. Anyone can criticize. Critics and assh*les, you know what they say...

Victory is not removing Saddam. It's building a popular democracy. They've said that since the beginning; don't blame Bush because you weren't listening.

[headscratcher4]

Unfortunately, through lies, deceit and intentional misinformation and misdirection, Bush has committed the United States to Iraq.

Sadly, we must stay, for leaving now is to let, literally, the forces of darkness win -- whether Moslem extremists or the return of the Baath-facist regime.

This is George Bush's legacy.

His said, absolutely Orewllian interpretation of events -- i.e. the desperation of the extremist attacks prove we are winning -- has that wonderful ring of Tonkin Gulf, Kruschev's "we will bury you..." speech, and Joseph Gobels trying to explain the retrain from Stalingrad. Pathetic.

The solution isn't for the US to withdrawal. The solution is for the US to realize that multinational forces and funds are needed to stabilize Iraq. To can, fire, ax, remove, publicly expose the people in the Administration who said it would be a cost-effective cakewalk, to let the American people fully understand that, with the wonders of the tax cut, our adventure in Iraq is going to cost much more than was ever suggested by the powers that be (i.e. we will be paying for this long after the boost from your tax cut is spent paying for the cost of your rising health insurance...).

As one commentator in the NYTimes concluded yesterday, we had all better hope that Bush was willfully lying to the American people and the world about Iraq, what it would cost, and our plans for that country, because if he was telling the truth as he believed it, than we really did elect someone as dumb as all of the Bush haters have claimed.

No, alas, I fear we cannot leave Iraq just yet, but it is time to hold the Administration who got us there -- with their claims of Saddam having a nuclear program within months of a bomb, with their claim of chemical weapons stored all across the country, and with their claim of overt and clearly identifiable links to terrorist organizations -- responsible.

The young men and women of this country who will die in the next several months in defense of this ill-conceived policy deserve nothing less.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.


We're helping them rebuild. We're rooting out the remnants of the Baathist regime. We're hunting for Saddam. And we're helping to provide security. But maybe you don't want these things for the Iraqi people. Maybe you sympathise with people who bomb red cross facilities.


And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us!


Evidence, please?


Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us?


We're going to install a democracy. The Iraqi people will then install whoever they like to lead that democracy.


After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.


Ah yes, that tired old argument: we helped make the problem, so we should refrain from fixing it.


All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

Yeah yeah, Iraq=Vietnam. Except it doesn't. And do you think people who bomb red cross facilities are going to be satisfied with us pulling out of Iraq, and will just leave the place in peace after that? You're advocating covering our own backside at the expense of Iraq possibly spiralling into chaos and the hands of such extremists. You have the same callous disregard for Iraq as Ion has, you don't care about them at all, all you want is a failure for Bush. How delightfully self-absorbed.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Jocko
Victory is not removing Saddam. It's building a popular democracy. They've said that since the beginning...I beg to differ. "They" trumpeted WMD as the alpha and omega of going to town. SH was secondary. And every other reason? Hoped for byproducts, but not the goals of "victory."

[Silicon]

I agree with headscratcher.

We need to clean this up, not merely leave.

We need to elect someone who will choose the hard solution of doing it right, rather than the easy solution of leaving.

Bush, et al seem committed to the hard solution, but I am ... shall we say... unconvinced of their ability to competently solve the problems they face.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
No, alas, I fear we can not leave Iraq just yet, but it is time to hold the Administration who got us there -- with their claims of Saddam having a nuclear program within months of a bomb, with their claim of chemical weapons stored all across the country, and with their claim of overt and clearly identifiable links to terrorist organizaitons -- responsible.

The young men and women of this country who will die in the next several months in defense of this ill-conceived policy deserve nothing less. Hear, hear.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

The solution isn't for the US to withdrawl. The solution is for the US to realize that multinational forces and funds are needed to stabilize Iraq.


I agree completely, but I would like to note that these ARE things we're trying to do. The funds, particularly, are what Iraq needs the most (much more than more external forces), and on that front, France and Germany are really coming up short.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.main/index.html
"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."


To can, fire, axe, remove, publically expose the people in the Administration who said it would be a cost-effective cakewalk, to let the American people fully understand that, with the wonders of the tax cut, our adventure in Iraq is going to cost much more than was ever suggested by the powers that be (i.e. we will be paying for this long after the boost from your tax cut is spent paying for the cost of your rising health insurance...).


Hey I even agree with this, though I think I may be in disagreement with you over the fact that I think this endeavor was still worth it, though it was misrepresented and at times mismanaged.

Cheers

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Jocko


1. Faulty analogy. What we're doing in Iraq is in direct contradiction to the previous policy. So were we wrong then, or now? It can't be both.

2. We propped up the Shah, which was not only morally wrong but impractical. We're doing the same in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them as well, or is the economic reason for that support justified?

3. You drop a lot of provocative (in the rabble-rousing, as opposed to insightful way), but never offer any solutions. Anyone can criticize. Critics and assh*les, you know what they say...

4. Victory is not removing Saddam. It's building a popular democracy. They've said that since the beginning; don't blame Bush because you weren't listening.

1. Huh?
2. We should not invade sovereign nations that do not directly attack us.
3. "Critics and..." - now THAT is insightful.
4. Victory is building a popular democracy, eh? Like we did in Vietnam? Or Iran? Or Afghanistan? etc. etc. How would we know how to put together such a government in a place as complex as Iraq? That is the entire point of the thread... we pretend that our dabbling in Iraqi politics is for the "better good" of the Iraqis, when we don't know what the results will be. We are guessing!

Bush is claiming that the violent reaction of Iraqis "proves" we are getting closer to a better result - specifically: democracy. So tell me, what would have to happen to indicate it is not going well? How will we measure this new objective, since our previously stated objectives (removal of the evil human-rights-abusing Saddam, elimination of WMDs which are an imminent threat to the US and UK) are now completed?

My solution: U.S. out of Iraq. Now. (So am I still a critic without a solution? Or is my solution "too impractical" to satisfy your requirements? Afraid Saddam will re-emerge?)

By the way, what country is to be the next target of our global forced and violent push into democracy? I guess we should ask Wolfowitz to get that answer.

[Skeptic]

Gee, that's interesting...

Whenever Hamas or Islamic Jihad or some other organization kills jews in israel, the left excuses it by saying that it is, surely, an act of "desperation" and that we should understand the "real reasons" behind it (e.g., it's all the jews' fault.)

But when Bush claims the same is true with the bombings in Iraq--that it is an act of desperation--heaps of abuse are launched at him. Doesn't Bush KNOW such suicide bombings are not act of desperation, but of people hell-bent of killing Americans no matter what?

Well, Dr. Chinese & co., you can't have it both ways... either both Hamas's and these suicide bombings are acts of desperation, or neither are. Which one is it?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Gee, that's interesting...

Whenever Hamas or Islamic Jihad or some other organization kills jews in israel, Dr. Chinese & co. excuse it by saying that it is, surely, an act of "desperation" and that we should understand the "real reasons" behind it (e.g., it's all the jews' fault.)

But when Bush claims the same is true with the bombings in Iraq--that it is an act of desperation--heaps of abuse are launched at him. Doesn't Bush KNOW such suicide bombings are not act of desperation, but of people hell-bent of killing Americans no matter what?

Well, Dr. Chinese & co., you can't have it both ways... either both Hamas's and these suicide bombings are acts of desperation, or neither are. Which one is it?

You have me confused with someone else. I don't condone terrorism, and I don't support the Palestinians over the Israelis. As to whether the terrorism is "acts of desperation", I have no idea whether it is or not; and I am not sure I understand the significance of the phrase. All I know is that it is not going smoothly in Iraq, and you don't have to be a genius to know that.

[Skeptic]

You have me confused with someone else. I don't condone terrorism, and I don't support the Palestinians over the Israelis.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant the "left" in general, which is why I referered to "Dr. Chinese & co". and not just to "Dr. Chinese." I have edited my previous post to reflect this.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

4. Victory is building a popular democracy, eh? Like we did in Vietnam? Or Iran? Or Afghanistan? etc. etc.


No, like we did in Germany or Japan, two countries we actually invaded and occupied (something we didn't do in either of the examples you listed).


My solution: U.S. out of Iraq. Now. (So am I still a critic without a solution? Or is my solution "too impractical" to satisfy your requirements? Afraid Saddam will re-emerge?)


So what do YOU think would happen if we just left now? You keep saying we should do this, but yet you won't say what would happen if we did pull out. What do YOU think extremists who bomb red cross facilities would do if we left? You haven't proposed a solution, you've proposed abandoning the problem completely. You can't even say what you think would happen afterwards if we did just leave now.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You have me confused with someone else. I don't condone terrorism, and I don't support the Palestinians over the Israelis.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant the "left" in general, which is why I referered to "Dr. Chinese & co". and not just to "Dr. Chinese." I have edited my previous post to reflect this.

By the way, I do not speak for the left. In fact, I do not consider myself part of the left because I am a conservative Texas Democrat. I speak for no one but myself, and cannot meaningfully defend the left.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
1. No, like we did in Germany or Japan, two countries we actually invaded and occupied (something we didn't do in either of the examples you listed).

2. So what do YOU think would happen if we just left now? You keep saying we should do this, but yet you won't say what would happen if we did pull out. What do YOU think extremists who bomb red cross facilities would do if we left? You haven't proposed a solution, you've proposed abandoning the problem completely. You can't even say what you think would happen afterwards if we did just leave now.

1. We didn't get this kind of negative reception in your examples, either, so not too good a parallel. And those countries were a lot bigger. Wonder what would have happened if we had...

2. The U.N. could step in and perform its role. The U.S. has too big an axe to grind.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


1. We didn't get this kind of negative reception in your examples, either, so not too good a parallel. And those countries were a lot bigger. Wonder what would have happened if we had...



This "Life Magazine" article from the 1940's says otherwise. (http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm)

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last was America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

2. The U.N. could step in and perform its role. The U.S. has too big an axe to grind.

Hah! That's laughable. The UN can contribute meaningfully to relief efforts and reconstruction, but they can't provide security to Iraq. Hell, they couldn't even manage their own security effectively. If they can't protect their own people, how the hell can anyone expect them to provide security for Iraq as a whole?

http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news031023a.html

"Among the defenses set up by the American military and removed at the United Nations' request, was a five-ton truck that blocked access to the service road that the bomber used to reach the headquarters. Later, the military laid concertina wire across the road, but United Nations officials requested that it be removed, too."

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You have me confused with someone else. I don't condone terrorism, and I don't support the Palestinians over the Israelis.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant the "left" in general, which is why I referered to "Dr. Chinese & co". and not just to "Dr. Chinese." I have edited my previous post to reflect this.

To: Skeptic

Pardon me for jumping in but I sense that you still have some questions on your mind regarding the "desperate" issue in regards to terrorist acts.

By definition, all terrorist acts are the result of desperation. What happens is that the terrorists are fighting a power that has far more resources at its disposal than the they do, therefore the they use tactics that have a low-cost but high degree of public impact. I am sure they would prefer to have billions of dollars at their disposal and the very strong military that would enable to take the battle all the way to the front door of their enemy, but since they do not have those kinds of tools, they have to make do with attacks that keep their enemy so on edge that they are unable to consolidate their gains.

Therefore, the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas terrorists, the Iraqi terrorists, the Order of the Black Hand terrorists, and all of the others are acts of desperation.

What is bothering me, and I expect Dr. Chinese as well, is that Bush is saying that the reasons he gives for the desperation of the Iraqi terrorists are ludicrous (Bush says the terrorists are Saddam Hussein loyalists who hate freedom and love chaos, but just hold steady and that before too long things will much better).

Does this help?

[Malachi151]

The US can't pull out of Iraq at this point. We got into a bad situation with poor planning and even poorer motives, but now that we are there we have to stay and see it through.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The US can't pull out of Iraq at this point. We got into a bad situation with poor planning and even poorer motives, but now that we are there we have to stay and see it through.

Great. What are our new objectives, and what yardsticks will we use to measure them?

According to Bremer, there are more good days in Iraq than bad days. (Sure doesn't look that way from the news.) Is that the new yardstick? Maximize(Good days - bad days) ?

Bush says the increase in attacks shows the plan is working. Is that the yardstick? Maximize(Dead US soldiers + dead civilians) ?

Does Saddam need to be captured before we leave? Does the UN need to resume weapons inspections when we leave? Are we going to decide the fate of the Kurds? How about the role of the Shiites? Is Iraq going to become a theocracy?

Tell me again: why the United States is the best party to make these decisions for the Iraqis? Does the barrel of a gun add IQ points to the man holding the gun?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Great. What are our new objectives, and what yardsticks will we use to measure them?


Our objective is to establish a democratic government for Iraq. Progress towards that will not be easy to measure, though there are some goalposts along the way, such as the establishment of an Iraqi police force (already started, though it needs to be expanded) and the drafting of a constitution.

I'm sure you've been having fun trying to interpret Bush's comments in the most negative light possible, and certainly he's just trying to put as good a spin on the situation as he can (why that's cause for blame rather than just ignoring him I can't understand). But these events do not really indicate long-term progress OR failure. But I guess a little patience might be too much to ask.


Tell me again: why the United States is the best party to make these decisions for the Iraqis? Does the barrel of a gun add IQ points to the man holding the gun?

Because we were the ones willing to stick out our necks to get rid of Saddam. Do you really think the UN would do a better job? They screwed up their own security so badly that they got their lead administrator killed, and they had to mostly pull out - imagine the problems that would have caused had they actually been in charge. How about the French? Maybe they can recreate their successful Ivory Coast venture in the middle east.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Because we were the ones willing to stick out our necks to get rid of Saddam.
...

Did you?

Did you go to fight in Iraq?

When?

Aren't you just sitting in U.S. and bragging about 'liberating' Iraq from Saddam like a redneck armchair hero?

How come O'Rat that you recycle the arguments that you lost in the thread I opened -'The war in Iraq is not about oil, is about 'liberation''-?

For example, the argument that the war in Iraq is not about Saddam but is about U.S.'oil and hegemony as seen by Bush.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

How come O'Rat that you recycle the arguments that you lost in the thread I opened -'The war in Iraq is not about oil, is about 'liberation''-?


You mistake losing interest in responding to your rants with losing the argument. Aren't you just sitting in San Diego, defending Saddam's regime since you didn't have to live under it? Shall we call that armchair oppression, worm? And I thought we already went through this: don't make claims about me personally when you have absolutely no knowlege of who I am and what my background is.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

You mistake losing interest in responding to your rants with losing the argument.
...

You mean that you have an invisible argument in that thread that makes me losing the debate?

It's like the invisible WMDs in Iraq:

post that invisible argument and prove that you win and I lose.
Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Aren't you just sitting in San Diego, defending Saddam's regime since you didn't have to live under it?
...

Defending Saddam's regime from Bush?

Sure:

Bush is after oil.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Gee, that's interesting...

Whenever Hamas or Islamic Jihad or some other organization kills jews in israel, the left excuses it by saying that it is, surely, an act of "desperation" and that we should understand the "real reasons" behind it (e.g., it's all the jews' fault.)

But when Bush claims the same is true with the bombings in Iraq--that it is an act of desperation--heaps of abuse are launched at him. Doesn't Bush KNOW such suicide bombings are not act of desperation, but of people hell-bent of killing Americans no matter what?

Well, Dr. Chinese & co., you can't have it both ways... either both Hamas's and these suicide bombings are acts of desperation, or neither are. Which one is it?

The Palestinians are terrorists. The Palestinians are desperate. Therefore, all terrorists are desperate.

Spot the flaw.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


quote from DrChinese:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell me again: why the United States is the best party to make these decisions for the Iraqis? Does the barrel of a gun add IQ points to the man holding the gun?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we were the ones willing to stick out our necks to get rid of Saddam. Do you really think the UN would do a better job?

So it is a reward for our great victory! Awesome! To the victor go the spoils! $87 billion more and counting... As to doing a better job... when did imposing democracy on other countries become our job? And why do we think we can do it well?

Face it, these questions are all moot because Bush's goal is to assert American hegemony on the world, not do something good for the Iraqis. Iraq is to serve as an example to the rest of the world. Listen - or else! Our way or the highway. Etc etc. The American public wants to do good, but Bush is perverting the truth - some call it spin - so night is day and day is night. Anything that gets Bush more of what he wants is OK. Anything that holds him back is disloyal, unpatriotic, uncooperative, etc.

I say: tell the truth, whatever that truth is. Let's make an informed decision together based on facts we can all agree on.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Headscratcher:
Sadly, we must stay, for leaving now is to let, literally, the forces of darkness win -- whether Moslem extremists or the return of the Baath-facist regime.

This is George Bush's legacy.

It's all Clinton's fault.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DrChinese


So it is a reward for our great victory! Awesome! To the victor go the spoils! $87 billion more and counting...

If this (http://www.costofwar.com/index.html) site is to be believed, the US isn't quite there yet. About 6 bil to go.

And if this war was all about the US giving Iraq democracy, where are they going to stop? Lots more countries out there without democracy. Who's going to pay for it all?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
As to doing a better job... when did imposing democracy on other countries become our job? And why do we think we can do it well?


It became our job when we decided we cared about that. Most of the world doesn't give a crap about democracy, in case you haven't noticed. Your point?


Face it, these questions are all moot because Bush's goal is to assert American hegemony on the world, not do something good for the Iraqis. Iraq is to serve as an example to the rest of the world. Listen - or else! Our way or the highway. Etc etc.


Paranoia and conspiracy theories abound.

But yes, it does serve as a warning. It warns dangerous regimes that they are not free to act with impunity. It tells places like North Korea that we are willing to step up to the bat and face them down, by force if necessary. It tells Iran that they better start dealing with the IAEA now because they DON'T want to be dealing with us one-on-one. And it tells dictators across the world that there IS a line that they cannot cross with impunity. Cry all you want to about American hegemony, but frankly those are good things.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

...
...Lots more countries out there without democracy. Who's going to pay for it all?
Don't even ask:

it's Clinton's fault.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
It warns dangerous regimes that they are not free to act with impunity.
...

You mean the dangerous Bush regime is not "...free to act with impunity."?

I like that.

Keep digging in this direction...

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

It became our job when we decided we cared about that. Most of the world doesn't give a crap about democracy, in case you haven't noticed.
...

Did you tell Bush that you decided to care "...about that."?

Because your Bush, he "...doesn't give a crap about democracy, in case you haven't noticed."

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us! Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us? After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?
Maybe you should consider what the Iraqis think. (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=734)

Some excerpts from the poll: (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991)

The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together...Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no.

Less than 30% of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully half knew some family member, neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power.

Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year.


Dr. Chinese - why are you so adamant that a puppet dictator will be installed? What evidence do you have? I think those days are over, nobody thinks this would be good policy in Iraq or anywhere else.

[Mr Manifesto]

Isn't it amazing that one of Zogby's services is public relations (http://www.zogby.com/products/ReadProduct.dbm?ID=59)?

Zogby International offers a complete range of specialized public relations services to fulfill any client's media, community, client, or employee relations' or any public imaging need. Services range from the initial effort in designing the public communications strategy to news release development and dissemination to actual media contact to assure the client's issue and position are correctly portrayed.

Zogby International can develop expert and targeted news releases that specifically emphasize client news and views which, when used with our 8,000-listing data base, prompt widespread media coverage and subsequent widespread public consumption of your agency's position.

Zogby International can also develop detailed and in-depth strategic public relations plans, whether for short term accomplishments or long-range goals. The strategic planning effort will encompass years of planning expertise and experience utilized multi-national corporations and organizations throughout the world.

(my paragraph breaks)

Indeed.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes take the US out, and let the anarchy in.

[crackmonkey]

Manifesto - Zogby's poll results fly in the face of your cherished political conceits and so you sneer at them. Is your scorn directed at all polling companies that also do public relations, or merely the ones whose polls contradict your dogma?

[Ion]

Nah:
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes take the US out, and let the anarchy in.
Is all about what Bush did in Iraq.

You will see that when a new U.S. President is elected in 2004, with a philosophy different than Bush's in allowing economic and politic interests to invest and share in Iraq, then the international help will pour in helping Iraq.

Is just that since he decided almost solo to attack Iraq, Bush is an obstacle to peace in Iraq.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

...
Is your scorn directed at all polling companies that also do public relations, or merely the ones whose polls contradict your dogma?
cracky,

what about my poll in the thread 'The war in Iraq is not about oil, is about 'liberation'', where "...Only 15% of Iraqis view them (i.e.: U.S.) as "liberating forces."..."?

Is that one contradicting "...your dogma..." about what Bush's war in Iraq is doing?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Manifesto - Zogby's poll results fly in the face of your cherished political conceits and so you sneer at them. Is your scorn directed at all polling companies that also do public relations, or merely the ones whose polls contradict your dogma?

If you're too stupid to see how a polling company that does PR and campaigning for political parties might have a conflict of interest, I suggest you stop wasting the hospital staffs' time and ask them to unplug your life support so that they can help retards with an outside chance of contributing to society.

The polling companies I prefer are ones who don't do public relations or campaigning at all. Feel free to run a media group, newspapers, etc, but as far as I'm concerned, if you work for political parties, that's a conflict of interest.

[crackmonkey]

Ah, so you're tossing out all Zogby polls whatever their results. Of course, I'm sure you check to ensure any statistics you throw around weren't obtained by those slick Zogby shysters. Just out of curiosity, which polling organizations do you recommend?

Ion - what on earth are you babbling about?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Ah, so you're tossing out all Zogby polls whatever their results. Of course, I'm sure you check to ensure any statistics you throw around weren't obtained by those slick Zogby shysters. Just out of curiosity, which polling organizations do you recommend?

Ion - what on earth are you babbling about?

I don't recommend any polling companies in particular. What I do make sure I consider whenever I see a poll is that the poll may have been written for a reason.

Nice strawman about tossing out all Zogby polls. If Zogby publishes a poll where there is no conflict of interest, I can take the poll on its own merits. This isn't one of those polls.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

...
Ion - what on earth are you babbling about?
Check that thread.

The poll is in the last page.

Word by word in my post is exactly how it is written in the newspaper, and I can mail a copy of the article to you, if you want to check my claim and give me an address of where to sent to.

The newspaper is The San Diego Union Tribune, a mainstream paper in the big and populated San Diego County.

It says "...Only 15% view them as 'liberating forces'...", right there.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Bush opened the system, and is now establishing or trying to, a more open system. What we do now is up to us. I personally don't think Bush is doing a very good job, but I'd rather a bad try and an abadonment of the enterprise. Democracies are established, they don't just pop out of thin air. The US has had a strong democratic tradition, Iraq has not. That means democracy there is less likely to develope by the Iraqi's own means, it will need assistance.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Great. What are our new objectives, and what yardsticks will we use to measure them?

According to Bremer, there are more good days in Iraq than bad days. (Sure doesn't look that way from the news.) Is that the new yardstick? Maximize(Good days - bad days) ?

Bush says the increase in attacks shows the plan is working. Is that the yardstick? Maximize(Dead US soldiers + dead civilians) ?

Does Saddam need to be captured before we leave? Does the UN need to resume weapons inspections when we leave? Are we going to decide the fate of the Kurds? How about the role of the Shiites? Is Iraq going to become a theocracy?

Tell me again: why the United States is the best party to make these decisions for the Iraqis? Does the barrel of a gun add IQ points to the man holding the gun?

Hey, I opposed the war from the start, but now that we are in there we can't just walk away.

It's like starting a remodeling job on a house.

Maybe you have a house and you say, "Hey this house looks old, let's remodel it, starting tomorrow!"

An arthitect says "no, bad idea, first of all it does not need to be remodeled, and secondly if we do then we need some detailed plans and we need to hire a bigger crew of people."

Then you say no, screw that , are you with me people!" And the some people in the crowd say "No, listen to the architect!" but the majority says "Yeah, let's do it!"

So then you start in, you do some demolition and then decide, "Well this is going to be more expensive then we thought, I don't know how to fix the plumbing, and the owners doesn't like our design."

Your suggestion is then to "just walk away"

Nope, sorry dude, now you have a mess on your hands and it has to be fixed somehow.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think Malochi makes an excellent point. Even if the war was a bad idea (IMO it still wasn't) pulling out now would be a disaster. We are stuck with the responsibility now more then ever of helping Iraq. I mean if we just left, first of all, other nations could take advantage of it, there could be warlords infighting, invasion from Iran (at the very least, exploitation), etc. The region would then hate us more then ever, remembering us as a nation that went in, kicked them around, made false promises and left.


Personally though I think Bush is doing a bad/inefficient job. I'll give more time, but not much more. Next election I'm likely voting Democrat. As they will likely be more effective, moderate and secular in their approach to the issue, imo.

[crackmonkey]

So, Manifesto - you accept SOME of Zogby's polls, but not others. Pray tell, how do you distinguish genuine polls from bought-and-paid-for polls by Zogby PR clients? You must either have total access to Zogby client records or some pretty impressive psychic abilities.
Of course, you may just be talking out your ass...

Post a link, Ion.

[Cain]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Manifesto - Zogby's poll results fly in the face of your cherished political conceits and so you sneer at them. Is your scorn directed at all polling companies that also do public relations, or merely the ones whose polls contradict your dogma?


There's on slight problem: Even Zogby says that AEI manipulated his poll:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=33984&d=22&m=10&y=2003

In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI’s “spin” and the vice president’s use of their “spin” created a faulty impression of the poll’s results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

...
Post a link, Ion.
I have it on paper.

I can send a copy to you if you tell me where.

(I am pretty sure most papers across U.S. printed this poll, since they have the same source of information, so it must be in the paper where you live too, but I can send you a copy).

[Cain]

Just a post a link. Or, write out an original sentence and I'll grab it off Lexis-Nexus. There's no need to send any one person the actual paper.

[Ion]

Yesterday, I posted this in the thread 'The war in Iraq is not about oil, is about 'liberation'':
Originally posted by Ion

The San Diego Union Tribune, Sunday, October 26, 2003 writes "Unpopular: Most Iraqis regard the U.S.-led forces in their country as occupiers rather than liberators, a recent poll found. According to a survey by Iraq's Centre For Research and Strategic Studies, 67 percent of Iraqis see the U.S.-led coalition forces as "occupying powers." Only 15 percent view them as "liberating forces." The poll of 1,620 Iraqis was conducted in seven cities. The margin of error is three percent."
...

The poll is in page A2 of The San Diego Union Tribune from October 26, 2003, and I keep the page A2.

It must have been printed in major papers across U.S. yesterday, but for whoever asks me to prove it, I can sent a copy when given an address.

[Dorian Gray]

It seems like the only way to introduce new data to Bush is to introduce a new staff. However, Bush does not like changing his staff so I expect the bad flow of information will continue unless the noise level becomes so loud that it can be heard inside the Oval Office. Bush seems to have a staff infection.

Extreme measures don't equate to "extremism." It's not like we're rounding up Iraqi civilians and executing/torturing them without trial. What we are doing is rounding up mothers of suspects and imprisoning them to coerce suspects to give themselves up. You tell me if that is right.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us!
Evidence, please?
Where is your evidence that Iraqis think the opposite - especially the women? You are beating the Red Cross bombing like a dead horse - we have bombed a few civilians ourselves, don't forget.

Ah yes, that tired old argument: we helped make the problem, so we should refrain from fixing it. If it happened in business or sports, the CEO/coach would be fired and another brought in. That is what we should do here - fire the president and bring in another.

No, like we did in Germany or Japan, two countries we actually invaded and occupied (something we didn't do in either of the examples you listed). We didn't invade Afghanistan?


Ziggurat, you really messed up your logic on this set of statements:
Hell, they couldn't even manage their own security effectively. If they can't protect their own people, how the hell can anyone expect them to provide security for Iraq as a whole? Ziggurat, meet 9/11. Substitute the words 'United States' for 'they', 'their', and 'them'. Read it again for a secret toy surprise.

[crackmonkey]

Cain - Interesting, but not relevant to my posts. The article is hardly revelatory... it essentially said (paraphrasing) that while Cheney said that a vast majority of Iraqis approve of the US's policies, in fact only a slight majority are firmly in Bush's camp. Okay, but pretty underwhelming. If that's the best the Arab press can do (it doesn't get much more anti-US) then we must be doing pretty well.
Ion - what do you know about the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies - the esteemed body that undertook the study you so proudly proffer to all comers? I'm certain that you have researched it thoroughly, to be such an ardent disciple of its pronouncements...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Where is your evidence that Iraqis think the opposite - especially the women?


The gallup pole, which showed that the majority of Iraqis think that the invasion was worth it to get rid of Saddam, and that the vast majority expect their lives to be better five years from now that it was before the war.


You are beating the Red Cross bombing like a dead horse - we have bombed a few civilians ourselves, don't forget.


Not comparable. I keep bringing up the red cross bombing to disabuse people of the notion that this violence represents Iraqi freedom fighters. It does not. These people aren't fighting to liberate Iraq, they're trying to turn it into a hellhole like Afghanistan. And they're willing to target anyone, including other Iraqis, to accomplish that.


We didn't invade Afghanistan?


Not really, if you get right down to it. We waged an air campaign, and fought on the ground mostly by proxy with northern alliance forces. We never had a massive ground force in Afghanistan, and still do not.


Ziggurat, you really messed up your logic on this set of statements:
Ziggurat, meet 9/11. Substitute the words 'United States' for 'they', 'their', and 'them'. Read it again for a secret toy surprise.

Try again. The UN screwed up their security, they didn't simply get hit because they were there. Look up the facts:
http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news031023a.html
There were security measures the US put in place to try to protect the UN, which would have prevented the bombing that killed their top guy, and the UN demanded that we REMOVE those protections. That's stupidity, plain and simple. And it worked: it got the UN to mostly leave. That's part of the key difference you seem unable to comprehend: the UN HAD to leave, because they couldn't fix their security problems. The terrorists beat the UN. But unlike the UN, our forces CAN successfully adjust, and we're NOT going to be scared away. Unlike the UN, we were NOT defeated by 9/11.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crackmonkey

...
Ion - what do you know about the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies - the esteemed body that undertook the study you so proudly proffer to all comers? I'm certain that you have researched it thoroughly, to be such an ardent disciple of its pronouncements...
I know nothing about the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies.

I buy major U.S. newspapers to keep me informed.

The information that I gather from newspapers and from the internet, I make it out into a vision of what happens elsewhere.

I figure that major U.S. newspapers are often -but not always- more trustworthy than many sites on the internet.

The article that I quoted endorsing -among other data that I printed- the poll of "...Only 15 percent view them as 'liberating forces'...", is from yesterday's The San Diego Union Tribune, a major U.S. newspaper.

I keep this article as an insight into the war in Iraq.

[crackmonkey]

Ah... you endorse a conclusion by a group you know nothing about merely because it appeared in a newspaper.
I'm awed by your honesty as much as your credulity.

[Ion]

Well, yes, that's all.

This major U.S. newspaper endorses the poll as a fact.

Do you know better?

I mean, do you know a poll that says otherwise and that you can make The San Diego Union Tribune, print?

This is important: "...and that you can make The San Diego Union Tribune, print?".

So that I can be confident it passed some scrutiny.

Notice, that the anti-Bush data like in this poll is written in small print in The San Diego Union Tribune, while the pro-Bush trumpeting is in big print in The San Diego Union Tribune.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us! Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us? After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

Do you consider the possibility that there would be a bloodbath of a civil war in Iraq if we pulled out now?

[peptoabysmal]

Hmmmm...

Here's a little tidbit of the story that was left out by MSNBC:


Commanders have noticed that more attacks are being launched from a distance, said Odierno, head of the 4th Infantry Division. That is probably because attackers realize they will suffer more casualties if they come in direct contact with coalition troops, he said.

Because fewer people are willing to participate in attacks, the price paid by organizers has increased significantly, he said.

"What we've seen is more mortar attacks and more improvised explosive devices," he said, adding that in his area north of Baghdad there haven't yet been any car bombs. "But I suspect that that's the next step."

Commanders have reports that at the outset, people were paid $100 to conduct an attack against coalition forces and $500 if they succeeded, whereas they now get somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 for an attack and $3,000 to $5,000 for a successful one.


It seems that perhaps cold, hard cash is a little bit of the motivation of these "Iraqi resistance fighters", eh?

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031027_1096.html

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

It seems that perhaps cold, hard cash is a little bit of the motivation of these "Iraqi resistance fighters", eh?
[/URL]

Yes, very capitalistic suicide bombers.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Hey, I opposed the war from the start, but now that we are in there we can't just walk away.

It's like starting a remodeling job on a house.

Maybe you have a house and you say, "Hey this house looks old, let's remodel it, starting tomorrow!"

An arthitect says "no, bad idea, first of all it does not need to be remodeled, and secondly if we do then we need some detailed plans and we need to hire a bigger crew of people."

Then you say no, screw that , are you with me people!" And the some people in the crowd say "No, listen to the architect!" but the majority says "Yeah, let's do it!"

So then you start in, you do some demolition and then decide, "Well this is going to be more expensive then we thought, I don't know how to fix the plumbing, and the owners doesn't like our design."

Your suggestion is then to "just walk away"

Nope, sorry dude, now you have a mess on your hands and it has to be fixed somehow.

Yes, we have a mess on our hands. We need to turn it over to another "contractor". We cannot - no matter how much you wnat it to be so - establish the stable democracy we would prefer. It is THEIR country, not ours. It is not our new social experiment.

Withdrawal does NOT mean abrogation of responsibility. It means turning over control to others. If we wait until our objectives are accomplished, we will still be there in 2013. We have done little in Afghanistan so far either. Ultimately, we will simply declare our mission accomplished and leave anyway. We may as well do that now.

[Dorian Gray]

Not really, if you get right down to it. Egads, what a powerful argument.
/sarcasm off
We went in there with troops and air strikes, and it's still a hellhole. Yay, us.

Try again. The UN screwed up their security, they didn't simply get hit because they were there. Look up the facts:
http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news031023a.html
There were security measures the US put in place to try to protect the UN, which would have prevented the bombing that killed their top guy, and the UN demanded that we REMOVE those protections. That's stupidity, plain and simple. And it worked: it got the UN to mostly leave. That's part of the key difference you seem unable to comprehend: the UN HAD to leave, because they couldn't fix their security problems. The terrorists beat the UN. But unlike the UN, our forces CAN successfully adjust, and we're NOT going to be scared away. Unlike the UN, we were NOT defeated by 9/11. NO NO NO, you retarded monkey. I was talking about 9/11. Look, I will do the work for you, since your comprehension is so damn vast:

Hell, The United States couldn't even manage their own security effectively. If the US can't protect their own people, how the hell can anyone expect them to provide security for Iraq as a whole? See? The United States couldn't even protect its own people against terrorist attacks. couldn't manage its security effectively, and if you'll notice ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/GAO_boxcutters030913.html ), it STILL can't manage its security. There is an entire new department specifically created to prevent people from doing this, yet they are still able to do it.

How can a country protect Iraq when it can't even prevent people from bringing box cutters on planes in the exact same identical manner as 9/11 despite a crisis/disaster, two years of preparedness and the creation of a department of Homeland Security? That was my point.

The gallup pole, which showed that the majority of Iraqis think that the invasion was worth it to get rid of Saddam, and that the vast majority expect their lives to be better five years from now that it was before the war. It wasn't a Gallup pole, it was a Zogby POLL, and the conflict of interest on that poll has already been discussed. How many people do you think they talked to? Do you think they talked to a fair representation of the people, or just to people who were easily accessible? I highly doubt they went into the hardcore war-torn regions of Iraq and asked THOSE people anything. Frankly, this poll is the suck.

Ah... you endorse a conclusion by a group you know nothing about merely because it appeared in a newspaper.
I'm awed by your honesty as much as your credulity. Crackmonkey, I can't wait until you quote someone so I can shoot you with your own ammo.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
1. It became our job when we decided we cared about that. Most of the world doesn't give a crap about democracy, in case you haven't noticed. Your point?

Paranoia and conspiracy theories abound.

2. But yes, it does serve as a warning. It warns dangerous regimes that they are not free to act with impunity. It tells places like North Korea that we are willing to step up to the bat and face them down, by force if necessary. It tells Iran that they better start dealing with the IAEA now because they DON'T want to be dealing with us one-on-one. And it tells dictators across the world that there IS a line that they cannot cross with impunity. Cry all you want to about American hegemony, but frankly those are good things.

This is our point of departure.

1. It cannot be our mission to reform the world at the end of a gun barrel. Even for the sake of democracy.

2. We are not the kings of the world. People respect and admire America for how we live our lives, not because we are the most powerful country on the planet. Our way to influence the world is BY EXAMPLE, not by force. What is capitalism except choice? What is democracy except choice? The world is already moving rapidly towards the ideas we cherish, we don't need to use force to speed the evolution. Use of force would be net counterproductive, anyway.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Yes, we have a mess on our hands. We need to turn it over to another "contractor". We cannot - no matter how much you wnat it to be so - establish the stable democracy we would prefer. It is THEIR country, not ours. It is not our new social experiment.

Whom do you suggest as the contractors? The same idiots who created the Israel / Palestinian crisis and had Berlin split into East and West for 40 years or so?


Withdrawal does NOT mean abrogation of responsibility. It means turning over control to others. If we wait until our objectives are accomplished, we will still be there in 2013. We have done little in Afghanistan so far either. Ultimately, we will simply declare our mission accomplished and leave anyway. We may as well do that now.
Fear of failure is not a good enough reason to back out of our responsibility.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yes, very capitalistic suicide bombers.

If you read the story you would know that they are not suicide bombers and are firing mortars from increasing distance to the US troops now.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

We went in there with troops and air strikes, and it's still a hellhole. Yay, us.


We went in with minimal ground forces. Afghanistan was also much worse off than even Iraq. There was no infrastructure to speak of, literacy rates are abysmally low, and we don't have a lot of forces there. Yeah, the situation isn't improving nearly as fast as I would like. But it has improved. Hell, just look at what the refugees do, that'll tell you just how bad things are compared to under the Taliban. But Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. Iraq does have infrastructure, though it has been badly neglected, and more importantly, it does have a skilled, literate workforce, which means that Iraqi police are competent to take over (there just aren't enough of them yet). And we are on the ground with large forces.


NO NO NO, you retarded monkey.


I remember a Dorian Gray on another message board who got driven away for random outbursts of bile like this. I wonder if you're the same one?


How can a country protect Iraq when it can't even prevent people from bringing box cutters on planes in the exact same identical manner as 9/11 despite a crisis/disaster, two years of preparedness and the creation of a department of Homeland Security? That was my point.


And it's a worthless point. Protecting a country isn't comparable to protecting a single building. Again: the UN deliberately removed effective precautions for their own safety. When they got hit, they mostly pulled out of Iraq. The terrorists defeated the UN. Why the hell would we want to put people like that in charge of the whole country?


It wasn't a Gallup pole, it was a Zogby POLL, and the conflict of interest on that poll has already been discussed.


I'm talking about a Gallup poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030924.asp
http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13919

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Fear of failure is not a good enough reason to back out of our responsibility.

That is 100% the opposite of what I said. We do have a responsibility, and we should fulfill it. But the responsiblity is to allow self-determiniation for Iraq, not for us to put our stamp on it. Such a process is not likely to work, and we should go another path. We should work with other nations to transition to a multi-lateral effort without US control.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Protecting a country isn't comparable to protecting a single building. Again: the UN deliberately removed effective precautions for their own safety. When they got hit, they mostly pulled out of Iraq. The terrorists defeated the UN. Why the hell would we want to put people like that in charge of the whole country?
...

You don't understand much, do you?

Let me spoon feed you:

.) the U.N. pulled out of a mess that Bush's U.S. created, to dissociate with Bush's U.S.;

.) the U.N. is a forum of discussion between countries, within rules, like the U.N. Chart;

.) the U.N. doesn't have a permanent army;

.) Bush's U.S. went to war in Iraq, without the support from the U.N. forum, which is to say without support from the massive majority of people on this globe;
arrogant, dumb Bush (and arrogant dumb Ziggurat) deem the majority of people on this globe, the U.N., as "...irrelevant..." (and "...schlerotic...");

.) the U.N. forum gives mandates in line with the U.N. rules -like the U.N. Chart-, to an international coalition of military forces;
Bush's U.S. never got that, and he doesn't get now U.N. financial and a mandate for military help because he is obstinate to rule Iraq under his interests only.

Feeling better now, O'Rat?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion


Nope. The UN pulled out because it couldn't ensure an even minimum level of security for its own personel. They pulled out because the terrorists beat them.

[B]
.) the U.N. forum van give a mandate in line with the U.N. rules -like the U.N. Chart-, to an international coalition of military forces;
Bush's U.S. never got that, and he doesn't get now U.N. financial and a mandate for military help because he is obstinate to rule Iraq under his interests only.


It's not Bush who will suffer if the UN doesn't contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq, it's the Iraqi people. But you don't care about them, you're happy to see them suffer if it will look bad for Bush. And that's why I call you a worm, because you can't put basic human decency ahead of your own personal politics.

[Crossbow]

Ziggy,

In case you forgot, in 1992 the USA encouraged an Iraqi revolt and when it looked like the wrong side would win, the USA withdrew their support and allowed these people to be crushed by Saddam.

And that is just one of the reasons why I doubt that the USA will be able to form a new government in Iraq that is stable, democratic, and supportive of USA interests.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

In case you forgot, in 1992 the USA encouraged an Iraqi revolt and when it looked like the wrong side would win, the USA withdrew their support and allowed these people to be crushed by Saddam.

I'm well aware of that fact. It's yet one more reason we cannot possibly afford to pull out now: we made the mistake of abandoning them once, we can't do it again.

And that is just one of the reasons why I doubt that the USA will be able to form a new government in Iraq that is stable, democratic, and supportive of USA interests.
Of the criteria you listed, we only need the first two. If Iraq becomes stable and democratic, that alone will be a major victory. Democracies do not pose a threat to us, even if (like the french) they really don't like us. And I think those goals can be accomplished, but they won't happen overnight. The pessimists have been wrong about a lot of things regarding Iraq already.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

I'm well aware of that fact. It's yet one more reason we cannot possibly afford to pull out now: we made the mistake of abandoning them once, we can't do it again.

Of the criteria you listed, we only need the first two. If Iraq becomes stable and democratic, that alone will be a major victory. Democracies do not pose a threat to us, even if (like the french) they really don't like us. And I think those goals can be accomplished, but they won't happen overnight. The pessimists have been wrong about a lot of things regarding Iraq already.

Thank you for acknowledging the first point.

But as to the second, I ask you to remember about Israel. After all, assuming that Iraq does become stable then it will be the worlds second largest oil producer. We already have some idea of the kind of mischief regarding Israel and the cost oil that the world's largest producer (Saudi Arabia) has been up to, therefore the democracy you have such high hopes for may wind up working against your interests.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Nope. The UN pulled out because it couldn't ensure an even minimum level of security for its own personel. They pulled out because the terrorists beat them.
...

Do you have a proof for this?

I remind you that the U.N. endorsed the war in Iraq in 1991, the U.N. gave a military mandate to an international coalition of forces led by U.S. in Iraq, and that the U.N. didn't pull out.

So the U.N. has the ability to function and suceed, like in 1991.

Now, do you have any proof that "...They pulled out because the terrorists beat them."?

Because it looks to me like the U.N. steer away from what mess the Bush's U.S. does.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

But as to the second, I ask you to remember about Israel. After all, assuming that Iraq does become stable then it will be the worlds second largest oil producer. We already have some idea of the kind of mischief regarding Israel and the cost oil that the world's largest producer (Saudi Arabia) has been up to, therefore the democracy you have such high hopes for may wind up working against your interests.

But it's precisely the fact that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy that causes these problems with Israel. They try to play off domestic tensions by focussing hatred towards Israel and appeasing radicals, because they don't want to air any criticism of their own problems. A democratic Iraq is not going to become friends with Israel, but when they have the opportunity to manage their own affairs democratically, they're also going to realize that their own affairs are more important to them than the Palestinian issue. And for the most part they're going to keep out of that mess, because what the hell is in it for them? They won't support extremists either, because that won't be the only outlet for people's frustration, and with a free press, delusional ideologies won't flourish the way they do in a closed, oppressive system like Saudi Arabia.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


If you read the story you would know that they are not suicide bombers and are firing mortars from increasing distance to the US troops now.

Congratulations on being the only one in America who hasn't heard of the latest round of suicide bomb attacks (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s977311.htm)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
It's not Bush who will suffer if the UN doesn't contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq, it's the Iraqi people. But you don't care about them,...
...

Iraqi people suffer in Iraq now because of Bush.

U.N. and me, we didn't endorse Bush's war.

So Bush is responsible about what he did.

In this week Newsweek, there is an article about what mess Bush made and makes in Iraq.

This mess, U.N. and me, we didn't do it and we don't do it, O'Rat.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Ziggy,

In case you forgot, in 1992 the USA encouraged an Iraqi revolt and when it looked like the wrong side would win, the USA withdrew their support and allowed these people to be crushed by Saddam.

And that is just one of the reasons why I doubt that the USA will be able to form a new government in Iraq that is a)stable, b) democratic, and c) supportive of USA interests.

Stable, democratic and supportive of US interests is Bush's agenda. Let's face it, that is the unspoken hope of most Americans after all is said and done, and the rest of the world knows it. But it is almost certainly an impossible task, which is why Bush will NEVER be able to accomplish it no matter how much time he is given.

a) Stable and b) democratic will be VERY hard to accomplish, even without c). By setting our sights too high, we risk total failure. So well said, Crossbow.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Do you have a proof for this?


What kind of proof are you looking for? The UN went into Iraq, got bombed because they removed security precautions that US forces put in place, and then withdrew most of its personnel in response to the bombing. Considering that Annan stated that the UN wanted to stay in Iraq to help the Iraqis, how do you figure your interpretation has any resemblance to reality?

http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=473
Annan: "The option of withdrawing is not something we can consider. The people of Iraq need us; they want us to stay. And the fanatics and the violent people who took Sergio and Nadia, Rick Hooper and other colleagues from us are not going to dictate what happens in Iraq. "

Except that the fanatics did dictate what happened, at least regarding the UN: they got the UN to pull most of their people out. And I don't really blame the UN for pulling out, because there really isn't a point to being in there if you can't manage your own security effectively. But that's my point: they couldn't manage security, and so they shouldn't be put in a position where everything depends on them being able to do what they cannot do. In other words, they shouldn't be in charge of Iraq, because they're simply not up to that task.


I remind you that the U.N. endorsed the war in Iraq in 1991, the U.N. gave a military mandate to an international coalition of forces led by U.S. in Iraq, and that the U.N. didn't pull out.


That's the key right there, isn't it? The 1991 war was successful because we were in charge, not the UN. The blue helmets can't handle dangerous situations, and they'd screw up Iraq, like they did in Rwanda or Yugoslavia. When you say we should put the UN in charge, what exactly do you mean if NOT the blue helmets?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

a) Stable and b) democratic will be VERY hard to accomplish, even without c). By setting our sights too high, we risk total failure.

What you propose (immediate withdrawl) is total failure as well, just on an accelerated schedule. Which suggests to me that failure is what you want. And sorry, but I just don't buy your predictions that we're doomed to failure.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Congratulations on being the only one in America who hasn't heard of the latest round of suicide bomb attacks (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s977311.htm)

Don't be an idiot. Pepto was refering specifically to an article about for-pay attacks which were NOT suicide attacks. That doesn't mean that suicide attacks aren't happening as well, but the majority of attacks against coalition forces (which mostly take place in the Sunni triangle) are NOT suicide attacks. And to top off the irony, the bomb attack that article is about (not what it references as previous attacks) was not a suicide attack either.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
What kind of proof are you looking for?
...

Achieving the U.N. Resolution under which an U.N. mandate warred Iraq in 1991:

.) removal of Iraqi from Kuwait;

.) disarming Iraq.

Both points were achieved.
Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
That's the key right there, isn't it? The 1991 war was successful because we were in charge, not the UN. The blue helmets can't handle dangerous situations, and they'd screw up Iraq, like they did in Rwanda or Yugoslavia. When you say we should put the UN in charge, what exactly do you mean if NOT the blue helmets?
Whatever works, regarding "...The 1991 war was succesful...".

Obviously, disrespecting U.N. as "...irrelevant...", warring almost solo and making an irreparable mess, it doesn't work in 2003.

Bush should have followed what worked.

Instead he made a mess in U.S. ($80 billion and counting during a recession when people don't have healthcare, lying) and he made a mess in U.N. with his interests for oil and hegemony.

Bush's U.S. is obviously not up to the task of liberating Iraqis, nevermind that Bush's U.S. is not up to the task of secretely looting Iraq's oil.

Yesterday's paper re-stated that Pakistan doesn't send troops to Iraq unless there is a U.N. mandate, and Turkey said it is not interested in sending troops.

I think that you and Bush you are learning that you need the U.N. international consensus and help first, before diving headfirst to make a mess that no other country wants to contribute to:

contrary to him first deeming U.N. as "...irrelevant...", Bush was desperately crawling in U.N. for financial and military help two weeks ago, didn't he?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Stable, democratic and supportive of US interests is Bush's agenda. Let's face it, that is the unspoken hope of most Americans after all is said and done, and the rest of the world knows it. But it is almost certainly an impossible task, which is why Bush will NEVER be able to accomplish it no matter how much time he is given.

a) Stable and b) democratic will be VERY hard to accomplish, even without c). By setting our sights too high, we risk total failure. So well said, Crossbow.

Thanks so much for your kind words Dr. C! I really appreciate it.

Ziggy, and I dare say at least a few other pro-war types, have high hopes that the USA will be able to make Iraq into a democratic society that will be self-sustaining and pretty much in line with US foreign policy interests. These goals are most laudable and I sincerely hope that they do materialize.

However, I think these people are rather naive` and what I expect to happen is that the Iraq situation will end up much like the situation in the Philippines did decades ago when they became essentially a US colony for many years. Even after they did get their independence, the USA wound up supporting a greedy tyrant who would allow US military bases in his country because the opposition would not permit these bases. So what wound up happening is that the USA ended up supporting yet another dictatorship in spite of their pretensions about supporting democracy abroad, fostering of political freedoms, the right of self-determination, and so on.

Therefore, if someone in Iraq shows up who can stabilize the country, keep oil prices down to about $25/bbl (or less), make regular payments on their international debts, continue to permit the USA military presence, and not be overtly hostile to the USA, then the USA will not be too fussy about the details of just how this new leader keeps these things on track so long as it looks like they will stay on track.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Thanks so much for your kind words Dr. C! I really appreciate it.

Ziggy, and I dare say at least a few other pro-war types, have high hopes that the USA will be able to make Iraq into a democratic society that will be self-sustaining and pretty much in line with US foreign policy interests. These goals are most laudable and I sincerely hope that they do materialize.

However, I think these people are rather naive` and what I expect to happen is that the Iraq situation will end up much like the situation in the Philippines did decades ago when they became essentially a US colony for many years. Even after they did get their independence, the USA wound up supporting a greedy tyrant who would allow US military bases in his country because the opposition would not permit these bases. So what wound up happening is that the USA ended up supporting yet another dictatorship in spite of their pretensions about supporting democracy abroad, fostering of political freedoms, the right of self-determination, and so on.

Therefore, if someone in Iraq shows up who can stabilize the country, keep oil prices down to about $25/bbl (or less), make regular payments on their international debts, continue to permit the USA military presence, and not be overtly hostile to the USA, then the USA will not be too fussy about the details of just how this new leader keeps these things on track so long as it looks like they will stay on track.

Exactly: you can pick any 2 from the list: a) Stable, b) Democratic and c) Amenable to US interests. Not easy, but possible. But getting all 3 is essentially impossible.

We always say the same about software development (my field): cheap, quick and good: pick any 2...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Don't be an idiot. Pepto was refering specifically to an article about for-pay attacks which were NOT suicide attacks. That doesn't mean that suicide attacks aren't happening as well, but the majority of attacks against coalition forces (which mostly take place in the Sunni triangle) are NOT suicide attacks. And to top off the irony, the bomb attack that article is about (not what it references as previous attacks) was not a suicide attack either.

I couldn't immediately find a link that was exclusively about the suicide attacks, so I picked one that referenced the suicide attacks instead... I'm a bit naive, I assume people will read the entire articles that I posted.

If you think that the only reason Iraqis are attacking the Americans if for the dollars, you are the idiot. Money does have its part, Saddam loyalists are part of the reason, but don't discount revenge attacks for Americans bombing the crap out of Iraq.

[Ion]

Bush goes down the toilet:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-10-27-bush-poll.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent voters, who some say are key to President Bush's re-election hopes next year, are losing confidence in his leadership in Iraq as attacks there continue, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found. (Related link: Poll results)

In the poll, 39% of independents approve of the way the Bush administration has handled things in Iraq since Bush declared an end to major combat six months ago; 57% of independents disapprove. In the public overall, the poll found, 47% approve.

That is a substantial deterioration from late April, when it was assumed that U.S. troops had secured the country. At that time, when 80% of the public approved of the conduct of the war, 73% of independents approved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Way to go:

down the toilet, and take your friends with you too, so that the world can flush this mess...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Independent voters, who some say are key to President Bush's re-election hopes next year, are losing confidence in his leadership in Iraq as attacks there continue, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found.

So you believe Gallup as long as they say something anti-Bush?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

So you believe Gallup as long as they say something anti-Bush?
I believe anyone as long as I crosscheck the claims.

Here I am crosschecking that Bush goes down, doesn't he?

Check this week's Newsweek, too.

Check Bush supporting a brute in Uzbekistan, as I posted in the thread 'The war in Iraq is not about oil, is about 'liberation''.

Damn, the arrogant, dumb crook, who poses as 'liberator'...

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


So you believe Gallup as long as they say something anti-Bush?

Ziggurat: "Paranoia and conspiracy theories abound."

Now who is seeing enemies under every bed? Facts are facts. We already determined that there are NO WMDs in Iraq and there never were (as of when we invaded, the relevant time frame). Even the Bush administration has admitted this. Fact: We are sitting on one heck of a mess in Iraq. No one has a clue as to what is really going on: Bremer is saying "more good days than bad" but the news doesn't seem to support that idea. Not that he is a puppet, mind you...

Are you surprised that after Bush claims the ongoing attacks in Iraq are a sign that his strategy is WORKING, the public is getting a little tired of his claims? "You can fool some of the people some of the time..."

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Ziggurat: "Paranoia and conspiracy theories abound."


You misunderstand me completely, though I'm not surprised. So let me clarify: I believe BOTH Gallup polls, the one that says Bush is losing popularity AND the one that says that most Iraqis think the invasion was worth it to get rid of Saddam. But Ion likes to pick and choose according to his ideological bias, celebrating one while denying the existance of the other.

[Ion]

Like I said, I believe what crosschecks and corroborates.

[Ion]

This link mentions the poll that I said yesterday it was printed Sunday October 26, 2003 in The San Diego Union Tribune:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only 33% of Iraqis Support U.S. Occupation
A new poll of over 1600 Iraqis has found that only 33 percent of the population supports the presence of occupying forces in Iraq. The poll was conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies. Less than one in five Iraqis now view U.S. troops as a liberting force. When the troops first arrived, twice as many saw them as liberators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/28/1450213

The article in The San Diego Tribune containing the poll mentioned here, is more explicit though than this link, but this link is good enough too...

[Ziggurat]

Ion, you really need to start checking your links before you post. When links are displayed on this forum, they are often trucated with ... in the middle for display purposes, so that it'll fit on one line. If you only copy what's displayed, you get a link that doesn't work. Jump to the linked site, then copy the COMPLETE address from the address bar.

[Ion]

The link works.

Check it out, by scrolling the page down to the middle, where it is written "Poll: Only 33% of Iraqis support...".

[crackmonkey]

So how have you 'cross-checked' this poll by the mysterious Iraqi organization? You mentioned that the San Diego paper printed it... does that imply an endorsement of the results? If I find a back issue of the paper where an administration official is quoted discussing Iraqi WMDs, would you then conclude that the paper believed that as affirmative proof of WMD existence?

[Ion]

I was waiting for this:
Originally posted by crackmonkey
So how have you 'cross-checked' this poll by the mysterious Iraqi organization?
...

That poll cross-checks well with what The San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times report -albeit in small print for now- for months, and it is consistent with reported bombings of American targets, attacks against the U.S. military, incidents where Iraqis civilians complain about U.S., sabotages of oil pipelines that were supposed to benefit Halliburton (U.S.), Exxon (U.S.) and Chevron (U.S.).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion
This link mentions the poll that I said yesterday it was printed Sunday October 26, 2003 in The San Diego Union Tribune:


What I'm getting from that poll is that Iraqis think our job is done there. I disagree, and so do a lot of Iraqis who are actually responsible for fixing the country, although I'm sure impatience is common. And I don't blame them, I'm sure it's frustrating that things aren't improving as fast as they hoped, and unfortunately that frustration does seem to be building. But once again, this does NOT contradict the Gallup poll I refered to. It suggests to me that they're glad we invaded to kick Saddam out, but want to regain autonomy sooner than is practically possible. The other thing about that poll is that Iraqis really do want democracy:

http://mfanreports.blogspot.com/2003_10_19_mfanreports_archive.html

They're not going to get what they want if we just leave now, and they never would have had ANY chance at it if we never invaded.

If anyone finds a direct link to a website for the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, that would be helpful, but I can't seem to find them directly on the web (though there are lots of references TO them).

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

What I'm getting from that poll is that Iraqis think our job is done there. I disagree,...
...

I also agree with a majority of Iraqis that the U.S. "...job is done there...":

is a poorly done job of wanting oil and hegemony, masked behind 'war on terrorism', 'liberation' (see U.S. supporting a Uzbekistan tyrant in the thread 'The war in Iraq is not about oil, is about 'liberation'') and unexistent WMDs.

Like DrChinese state here, the job is not done, but is time to change the contractor, i.e.: Bush and fans.

[crackmonkey]

Jeezus, Ion, you're a piece of work. You say the poll cross-checks with what was reported in other papers... were they also reporting on the same poll from this mystery organization (for which I can find no info other than in reference to this poll), or did they run separate polls which agreed with the result? The answer to this is crucially important, as I'm sure you will agree.
You say that pipeline sabotage was aimed at Halliburton et al? I'm once again amazed at your sources deep inside the Iraqi Ba'ath holdouts. Either that or your ESP is vitally needed by the US to determine the true motives of saboteurs.
Once again I marvel at your blind acceptance of an assertion merely because it's printed on newsprint.
Did you know that Bill Clinton was abducted by aliens? It's gotta be true - it was in a paper I saw at the grocery checkout stand...

[Ion]

cracky,

I don't think that you raised any argument against what I wrote, defended by any documented support in your last post.

And before that, in your previous post, and so on in your struggle for contributing.

When delirious 'thinking' of the kind "...it was in a paper I saw at the grocery checkout stand..." hits you, you might as well skip posting and take care of yourself, you know?

[Ion]

In line with this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
That poll cross-checks well with what The San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times report -albeit in small print for now- for months, and it is consistent with reported bombings of American targets, attacks against the U.S. military, incidents where Iraqis civilians complain about U.S., sabotages of oil pipelines that were supposed to benefit Halliburton (U.S.), Exxon (U.S.) and Chevron (U.S.).

(never mind cracky's imbecility in "...it was in a paper I saw at the grocery checkout stand...", since crackies are a dime a dozen in U.S.)

consider this:

13 Iraqis killed at protest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/chi-0304300376apr30,0,5557908.story?coll=chi-news-hed)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- At least 13 Iraqis were shot to death and up to 75 were wounded during a demonstration late Monday that turned into a confrontation with U.S. troops, the deadliest clash between civilians and American forces since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi killed during US protest (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7931&TagID=2)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - An Iraqi man has been killed and three wounded in the Shi'ite holy city of Kerbala as protesters clashed with U.S. troops and Iraqi police, witnesses and hospital workers say.

Marines said two Kalashnikov rifle shots were fired during the protest and they returned fire. Reuters journalists saw troops fire in the air to try to disperse stone-throwers angry at the killing of another man by U.S. troops on Saturday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion
In line with this:

(never mind cracky's imbecility in "...it was in a paper I saw at the grocery checkout stand...", since crackies are a dime a dozen in U.S.)

consider this:

13 Iraqis killed at protest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/chi-0304300376apr30,0,5557908.story?coll=chi-news-hed)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- At least 13 Iraqis were shot to death and up to 75 were wounded during a demonstration late Monday that turned into a confrontation with U.S. troops, the deadliest clash between civilians and American forces since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi killed during US protest (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7931&TagID=2)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - An Iraqi man has been killed and three wounded in the Shi'ite holy city of Kerbala as protesters clashed with U.S. troops and Iraqi police, witnesses and hospital workers say.

Marines said two Kalashnikov rifle shots were fired during the protest and they returned fire. Reuters journalists saw troops fire in the air to try to disperse stone-throwers angry at the killing of another man by U.S. troops on Saturday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You failed to mention that many of these "peaceful protestors" were carrying AK-47's. If the NRA had a demonstration with people carrying AK-47's and got shot up by the police, you'd say good for the police, cracking down on those damn gun fanatics.

This is the Shi'ite district. It is common knowledge that these guys aren't going to be happy until one of their wigged-out clerics is ruling the country. It would be interesting to see if these demonstrations would still take place if the press wasn't watching. I'll wager that the events at Shi'ite demonstrations are timed to the arrival of cameras and/or reporters. Are you a betting man?

[Ion]

Whatever the reasons you tell, 'Bush says night is day' applies here in the sense that Bush and fans are in the wrong place, doing the wrong things to the wrong people.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
This is the Shi'ite district. It is common knowledge that these guys aren't going to be happy until one of their wigged-out clerics is ruling the country.

I wonder how that will fit in with Bush's ideas on democracy? Maybe they have a different idea of majority rule than we do. If so, they could conceivably elect a Shiite leader to run things. That is the downside of democracy, you know, even incompetent people (with little or no relevant experience) can get elected in the right circumstances, and then put their own peculiar agenda into effect.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by DrChinese
That is the downside of democracy, you know, even incompetent people (with little or no relevant experience) can get elected in the right circumstances, and then put their own peculiar agenda into effect. :D

[Frank Newgent]

Read between the lines... (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=1381)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I wonder how that will fit in with Bush's ideas on democracy? Maybe they have a different idea of majority rule than we do. If so, they could conceivably elect a Shiite leader to run things. That is the downside of democracy, you know, even incompetent people (with little or no relevant experience) can get elected in the right circumstances, and then put their own peculiar agenda into effect.

That is one of the things that I keep thinking about too.

If Iraq uses their new found powers of democracy to form a government that looks a good bit like Iran (which could happen since there is such a strong Shiite presence in Iraq), then I expect that all this vaunted talk about supporting the Iraqi people so that they can be free to make their own decisons will soon evaporate.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

If Iraq uses their new found powers of democracy to form a government that looks a good bit like Iran (which could happen since there is such a strong Shiite presence in Iraq), then I expect that all this vaunted talk about supporting the Iraqi people so that they can be free to make their own decisons will soon evaporate.

I don't really think so. Iran isn't simply a religious state, it's also a deeply UNdemocratic state - the religious leaders can arbitrarily overrule elected officials, meaning their elections are ultimately meaningless. And that's a bigger part of their problem than the religion itself. If the Iranian people could choose, they'd kick the clerics out of power right now. If Iraqis democratically establish a religious state, it's still a democracy. That's a possibility, but it's not one that concerns me, because it's not going to cause any major problems. But the Iraqis DO want democracy. They want it more than they want a religious state. They're not going to give up the fomer for the later, and I'm not worried about them choosing both (that is, electing religious leaders to top positions). There are some pretty fundamentalist Shia leaders in Iraq, but most of the Shi'ites in Iraq look over at Iran and aren't impressed, they don't want to duplicate that mess in their own country.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I don't really think so. Iran isn't simply a religious state, it's also a deeply UNdemocratic state - the religious leaders can arbitrarily overrule elected officials, meaning their elections are ultimately meaningless. And that's a bigger part of their problem than the religion itself. If the Iranian people could choose, they'd kick the clerics out of power right now. If Iraqis democratically establish a religious state, it's still a democracy. That's a possibility, but it's not one that concerns me, because it's not going to cause any major problems. But the Iraqis DO want democracy. They want it more than they want a religious state. They're not going to give up the fomer for the later, and I'm not worried about them choosing both (that is, electing religious leaders to top positions). There are some pretty fundamentalist Shia leaders in Iraq, but most of the Shi'ites in Iraq look over at Iran and aren't impressed, they don't want to duplicate that mess in their own country.

I do hope you are right.

[Mr Manifesto]

From Frank Newgent's link:

(Iraq) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.

Nothing misleading about that. Nope.