board77

You may be able to say that of some past conflicts, but not this one. The only way they could even justify starting this one was by deliberately cherry-picking intelligence and scaring the public with mushroom clouds. There was no "freedom" at stake (other than for a minority of Iraqi's fortunate enough not to be killed, crippled, or living in fear or destitution), and anyone who proudly states the soldiers are over there protecting their freedoms has been duped.[/quote]

Ivaas, give me a break. This comment is so blatantly inflammatory you should be ashamed. You always demand proof from me so I now ask the same of you. Provide us with the 51% of the Iraq citizens who will support this statement.


freddy

I'm sure the soldiers do feel good when they see that they have helped someone. But what about the millions of other oppressed people around the world? That was not the purpose of the mission.

In terms of protecting America, Iraq was a bad target, and the soldiers actions have made the world less safe not more. Of course that's not their fault (except for the prison abusers), and they are going to take what positives from the mission that they can. But if they truly believe they are protecting America by killing bad guys, they have also been duped, because those bad guys were not operating there before the war.

Feredir wrote:

Quote:

You may be able to say that of some past conflicts, but not this one. The only way they could even justify starting this one was by deliberately cherry-picking intelligence and scaring the public with mushroom clouds. There was no "freedom" at stake (other than for a minority of Iraqi's fortunate enough not to be killed, crippled, or living in fear or destitution), and anyone who proudly states the soldiers are over there protecting their freedoms has been duped.

Ivaas, give me a break. This comment is so blatantly inflammatory you should be ashamed. You always demand proof from me so I now ask the same of you. Provide us with the 51% of the Iraq citizens who will support this statement.

Oh yes, life is so rosy in Iraq isn't it.

There are plenty of polls out there, how about 60% rating their life as "quite bad" or "very bad" (Aug 07):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... 7_full.pdf

Going back to March 07 (and don't tell me there's been a complete transformation since then):

Quote:

The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=1

In particular, the 53% can only have increased from then to now. And I would say "worry deeply" is very close to "living in fear" as I phrased it.

From wikipedia:

Quote:

Iraqi public opinion

A March 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organizations found that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces "acceptable," up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. Also:

* 64% described their family's economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005.
* 88% described the availability of electricity as being either somewhat or very bad, up from 65% in 2004.
* 69% described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004.
* 88% described the availability of fuel for cooking and driving as being somewhat or very bad.
* 58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.

Look, there's a 51%, like you asked for. I guess if you support attacks on American troops you must be super grateful to them for improving your life.

I'm in the Symposium, and yet I agree wholehearedly with Iavas's last post.

MariaHobbit wrote:

Do they have to balance out loads on planes? I wonder what would happen if all the passengers ran to one end of the plane?

It's not so much to deal with passenger loading, although they do watch that too. They're put out in control surfaces, I suspect to dampen vibration or some such. Or they were. I think they phased it out.

And when planes that carry it crash?

Same as when the ammo containing the stuff is used: it burns, oxidizes, and you should avoid inhaling it. Seriously though, there have been crashes where DU was in the downed plane. Effects? Good question. The most famous crash where DU was known to be present was in the Netherlands.

Thanks Ax. I learnt once that the Lockerbie crash contained DU debris.

First did I say it was easy in Iraq, no never. I have never said its rosy I am not that foolish.

These polls you quote do not provide a baseline that I can see.


You can ask that same poll in any country and the get the same results. As I am sure you know in your infinite wisdom that a poll can easily be skewed by asking people from certain sectors of life.

freddy

Quote:

You can ask that same poll in any country and the get the same results.

Rubbish.

Unless I am blissfully unaware that in peaceful countries not invaded by the US 50% of people have had someone close to them killed or injured in violence precipitated by an invasion, or a similar number support attacks on US forces, or that two thirds worry deeply about themselves and their loved ones being hurt.

The suffering that people will try to play down to defend this mistake...

Yes, Ivaas you are right. I bow to your intellect, you have won and I have no valid points. I hope you enjoy your loathing of everything and enjoy your remaining years on earth.



freddy

Unfortunately, people are sometimes struck by serious, lifelong illnesses. Usually, in those situations a person will likely go to their doctor and ask what can I do? And the doctor will think about it and say "Here, let's put you on these medications." And you'll say "thanks, Doc!" and go home and start your new treatment. But after awhile, you might find the treatments very hard to tolerate, that these medicines make you feel very unwell. You feel as if your quality of life is dropping. You decide you can't take it anymore and go back to your doctor and say "Doctor, the cure is worse than the disease!" And the doctor might say that "Sorry, it's all we can do." Or, if you're lucky the doc might say, "Ok then, there are other treatments that can be tried. They're might not as powerful but they will keep you from getting worse and not be as hard to bear as those other treatments." So you take this new treatment and find that it is easy to bear and that your quality of life is good and that the illness is in check and that your health remains strong. And you live happily ever after. Sometimes.

yovargas wrote:

Unfortunately, people are sometimes struck by serious, lifelong illnesses. Usually, in those situations a person will likely go to their doctor and ask what can I do? And the doctor will think about it and say "Here, let's put you on these medications." And you'll say "thanks, Doc!" and go home and start your new treatment. But after awhile, you might find the treatments very hard to tolerate, that these medicines make you feel very unwell. You feel as if your quality of life is dropping. You decide you can't take it anymore and go back to your doctor and say "Doctor, the cure is worse than the disease!" And the doctor might say that "Sorry, it's all we can do." Or, if you're lucky the doc might say, "Ok then, there are other treatments that can be tried. They're might not as powerful but they will keep you from getting worse and not be as hard to bear as those other treatments." So you take this new treatment and find that it is easy to bear and that your quality of life is good and that the illness is in check and that your health remains strong. And you live happily ever after. Sometimes.

Are you implying that the American invasion of Iraq was unpleasant medicine?

Am I nutz?

Well, there are several ways to look at that: first, maybe the doctor is an incompetent fool and has given you the completely wrong medicine; second, maybe the doctor is a homicidal maniac who has deliberately poisoned you; maybe you were never sick at all, maybe your papers got mixed up with someone else's.

Or maybe your scenario is correct.

Feredir wrote:

You can ask that same poll in any country and the get the same results. As I am sure you know in your infinite wisdom that a poll can easily be skewed by asking people from certain sectors of life.

freddy

Come on, freddy. That's not fair, and you know it. You're a fairminded guy. Give the information a chance.

Why don't you check out a few more polls about Iraq? There are dozens of them here and there, and most of them agree with the ones Iavas linked to.

The people of Iraq don't like being occupied. Just like YOU wouldn't like being occupied. Is that so odd?

And when you add terror to the mix: not terror as in "Al Qaeda", but terror as in not knowing what the hell the day is going to bring, should you go to the market, should you send the kids to school, should you go to work, can your wife have her baby in the hospital, all that stuff, I think it's pretty easy to see why people are not thrilled with the situation.

vison wrote:

Are you implying that the American invasion of Iraq was unpleasant medicine?

Not particularly, no. I was just thinking of general "prescriptions" to combat terrorism.

vison, I am tired. Tired of Ivaas constantly throwing things out and expecting me to listen but won't listen to what I throw out. I am tired of being the foolish one because I don't listen to what he has to say and him skewing what I have said.

The final straw really was the comment about "the minority of Iraqis that haven't been crippled and injured..." that statement was clearly meant to shock the senses. Had he worded it without the shock wording I likely wouldn't have taken it to task.

I do not have the time or inclination to try to show the opposite. Not because it isn't there but it will do no good. He believes what he does and there is nothing that I can say that will change it. I got involved with this to learn from the other side because the other sites I attend support my views with the same vigor that he does his. I wanted to learn and I have, it is time to move on and reduce the stress in my life. As you know I have church business to attend to.

I will close in this and leave it well enough alone. If you ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq if they are better off now than they were when Saddam was in charge they would say yes. That is my point. It all depend on who you ask.

In the US it is a common tactic for pollsters to call registered republicans when it comes to conservative issues and registered democrats when it comes to liberal issues. That is why I really don't hold much faith in polls. Now the polls Ivaas quotes may be accurate and I know that life is not easy in Iraq. I still hold firm that we need to stay the course, with changes as needed, because this is something that was created by the alliance and it would be very irresponsible to leave. Yes, the Iraqis need to take care of things but we need to help where we can.


freddy

Fair enough, freddy.

I don't hold much faith in polls, either. But my information about Iraq comes from reading reports from a whole number of sources - and I don't think one of the sources is a MSM American source.

"The alliance" did not create this mess, the USA did. When only one of the traditional allies of the USA could be persuaded to take part, that should have been a huge signal that something was wonky.

The Kurds? The Kurds want their own nation, they always did. Mr. Bush Sr. let them down in the Gulf War and Mr. Bush Jr. has no means of not letting them down again. They won't get their own nation: the Turks won't stand for it, the Iraqi leadership in the region won't stand for it.

"He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind." I think that's what the Bible has to say.

well, if you only listen to the one side that agrees with you, you'll always sound right.

I, and freddy probably, could always only hang out with people online that agree with us, and we'd have a grand old time.

However, it's far more useful to hang out with people that disagree... you aren't ever able to succumb to blatant falsehoods that your own side likes to sow...

but, you all here have to understand, it's very frustrating to get pigeonholed with the people who ARE only interested in hearing their own opinions echoed back at them... and it's very frustrating to not be listened to except in that respect. If you guys all don't listen... and only repeat the skewed points of view that are repeated ad nausium on sites with the opposing point of view... it's pointless.

debate is not about polls and skewed information, it's about discussing things as they are, and how they should be...

We are in Iraq, Iraq is now our ally. What led us there 5 years ago, is something history will determine was good or bad. Opinions about it are fine, but it's largely irrelevant to the reality of NOW.

We can do many good things in Iraq, and we ARE doing many good things. Does it justify us being there? Only time will tell. But to ignore that, and say we are all bad in the situation, is not really a discussion... it's just echoing a sentiment that is obviously not universally agreed with.


Personally, I was pissed at Bush for taking SO long to go into Iraq, because the evidence being presented was obvious. Then, when we went in, and it was clear we did NOT have an adiquate plan for dealing with the situation, I was pissed that we had apparently waited so long, but not planned enough in advance.

For a long time, I was very annoyed with the Bush administration, because they were too slow when I though they should be quick, and too fast when I thought they were rash. It was enough for me to leave the republican party, which was significant for me

Now, I do not choose to judge the Bush administration's actions, because I respect that they have been done based on conviction. Is that the best way to run a country? Perhaps not, but it is better than just doing the most popular thing...

Now THAT'S a discussion worth having...

Quote:

Yes, Ivaas you are right. I bow to your intellect, you have won and I have no valid points. I hope you enjoy your loathing of everything and enjoy your remaining years on earth.

I think you could have admitted defeat without adding that silliness?

Quote:

Tired of Ivaas constantly throwing things out and expecting me to listen but won't listen to what I throw out.

Now that's just being a sore loser. I responded to all your main points. Infact it was you that ignored some of the questions put to you.

Quote:

The final straw really was the comment about "the minority of Iraqis that haven't been crippled and injured..." that statement was clearly meant to shock the senses.

The full quote included killed, injured, AND living in fear or living in poverty. I'm not quite sure what shocked you.

Quote:

I do not have the time or inclination to try to show the opposite.

Not sure what the opposite would be (that a majority have been positively impacted?), but it took me 5 minutes to support my statement. If time is an issue in finding evidence for your views, that's not a great sign.

Oh but polls are meaningless..

..but what the troops hear from Iraqis, that's a completely different matter I suppose. Because I'm sure the Iraqis who don't want America occupying their country are just as enthusiastic to engage the troops in conversation as the grateful ones.

By the way, it's I-a-v-a-s. But thanks for the debate. I know I have a somewhat ruthless style.

Feredir wrote:

Iavas wrote:

You may be able to say that of some past conflicts, but not this one. The only way they could even justify starting this one was by deliberately cherry-picking intelligence and scaring the public with mushroom clouds. There was no "freedom" at stake (other than for a minority of Iraqi's fortunate enough not to be killed, crippled, or living in fear or destitution), and anyone who proudly states the soldiers are over there protecting their freedoms has been duped.

Ivaas, give me a break. This comment is so blatantly inflammatory you should be ashamed. You always demand proof from me so I now ask the same of you. Provide us with the 51% of the Iraq citizens who will support this statement.

Feredir, please start using quote blocks more consistently and accurately. And Iavas is correct that that the intelligence was cherry-picked, the public misled, and the soldiers are not defending the USA but instead mired in a war that was never about liberating Iraq.

51%? Try actual analysis. Iraq is a very sectarian polarized factionalized society. If democracy is instituted, it will not be liberal democracy, it will be sectarian democracy. That means the minority has no rights. Democracy is only a form of government, only a means of choosing the leaders, not an actual limit on government itself. Iraq would be a classic example if the USA didn't hold all the power - the majority would vote away all rights from the minority.

This from someone who get occasional intelligence briefings. The conspiracy theorists are right this time.