|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 18, 2005 14:30:32 GMT -5
there's an excellent column in the daily express today (of all newspapers). it's along the lines of what DS has been saying. . i read that too! unbelieveable wasnt it? lol. such a coincidence - honestly for those who havent read it, this guy wrote an article in an english national newspaper expanding on the basic idea i wrote about - that america has and still leads the way in promoting freedom and democracy for all and that we should be very grateful. he even wrote virtually the same paragraph about america's role in the 2nd world war, then the cold war, then terrorism. I feel vindicated - my opinions have been validated by some fat dude in a newspaper. ;D he was also saying about how everyone spends so much time and effort pointing out what america does wrong, yet they never spend any time looking at what the other countries do wrong.... couldnt agree more anyway its friday night - less politics, more beer....then later, more drunken politics and greasy food and hopefully a good hard shag yeah im classy Globe - dont pretend im not!
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Nov 18, 2005 18:01:06 GMT -5
Hey , I'm just gonna throw this in for the heck of it. Has anyone ever thought to themselves why didn't the US (and UK) just do a coverup and pretend to find stockpiles of weapons during those critical months after the war when the UN was not in the country. I mean they could have pulled it of right ? I hope what I'm saying is picked up as something positive. I'm trying to say it takes some guts to go public as a Superpower and say : "WE CAN'T FIND ANY WMD'S in IRAQ" .... Sort of goes against the flow of: The US will do and say whatever is best in their interests.....don't you think ?
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Nov 18, 2005 19:27:37 GMT -5
there's an excellent column in the daily express today (of all newspapers). it's along the lines of what DS has been saying. . i read that too! unbelieveable wasnt it? lol. such a coincidence - honestly for those who havent read it, this guy wrote an article in an english national newspaper expanding on the basic idea i wrote about - that america has and still leads the way in promoting freedom and democracy for all and that we should be very grateful. he even wrote virtually the same paragraph about america's role in the 2nd world war, then the cold war, then terrorism. I feel vindicated - my opinions have been validated by some fat dude in a newspaper. ;D he was also saying about how everyone spends so much time and effort pointing out what america does wrong, yet they never spend any time looking at what the other countries do wrong.... couldnt agree more anyway its friday night - less politics, more beer....then later, more drunken politics and greasy food and hopefully a good hard shag yeah im classy Globe - dont pretend im not! it's a great article. wish everyone could read it.
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 18, 2005 19:29:51 GMT -5
Hey , I'm just gonna throw this in for the heck of it. Has anyone ever thought to themselves why didn't the US (and UK) just do a coverup and pretend to find stockpiles of weapons during those critical months after the war when the UN was not in the country. I mean they could have pulled it of right ? I hope what I'm saying is picked up as something positive. I'm trying to say it takes some guts to go public as a Superpower and say : "WE CAN'T FIND ANY WMD'S in IRAQ" .... Sort of goes against the flow of: The US will do and say whatever is best in their interests.....don't you think ? TAM TYPING - Good Question obviously webby... "word on the street" (*coughing*) in DC is that it wld be too risky to plant WMD. harder to do than we think.. too many people would need to be involved in order to pull that one off.. ie. get some bloke from Ft. Detrick in Md. at USAMERID. they'd have to fudge numbers.. as everything there is WELL accounted for.. that wld be quite the cover up work.. someone wld screw up or leak to press.. Just not worth it.. To pull it off and not get caught wld entail a very "short chain of ppl.." you see what I'm saying.. ? and besides they wld be put under such a miscroscope and most people of the world wld be extremely skeptical anyway.. we've had enuff investigations and with the abuse cases and all.. so there's the DC theory...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2005 20:18:07 GMT -5
"America rid the western world of nazi's, led the way against the communist Soviet Union and now leads the way against terrorists. In each case they made mistakes along the way - but i dread to think what the world would be like if America hadn't made a stand." thank you and amen , I don't see anyone on here complaining about US actions which history shows us were correctly taken, all the armchair generals of the world are complaining about things we really can't know yet, but hey we're in the free worldt so we should be allowed to do that.....hmmmmm, isn't that what America has been fighting for all along ? I’d like to point out that all these points are irrelevant to today it is like me going England won the rugby world cup the last time so that means they will win it next time. The Second World War is over. It was nothing to do with Iraq. I would also like to point out, that I and many other people were against the war before it took place, it is not purely because no weapons were found, that people are anti war. Also George Bush's popularity was decreasing until September 11th then all of a sudden he went on a war against terrorism. Somehow believing that terrorism hadn’t existed before. Just to let all you Americans know terrorisms has existed for centuries throughout the world. It wasn't invented on September 11th 2001. And I put my life on the fact that Iraq would not have been invaded if it wasn’t for September 11th.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 19, 2005 10:16:22 GMT -5
I'm sorry but that's just too arrogant. The Soviets and English had fought the nazis before America came in and believe me the Soviets would have managed to make it to Berlin without the Americans moving into France. It would have been a question what would happen to the Western World after that, actually, because they would probably become under Soviet regime. Then, the Cold War, it wasn't just America who "led the way" because all of Europe was involved too, America just responded by making nuclear weapons. Speaking of nuclear weapons, why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapons and all their enemies not? That's just too hypocritic. And well, you lead the way against terrorists, but look at how many you have caught (both guilty and innocent) and what you've done to them. Currian - in my opinion, your post yesterday made some decent points, but this one is just virtually non stop bullshit. sorry. i disagree with practically all of it. first and foremost - i am English. not american. my support of america is not based on 'arrogance' or blind patriotism. unlike the iraq war, we can look back on the 2nd world war and the cold war, with hindsight. and as such - its baffling to hear some of the things people are saying in this thread. Denying history is quite scary.... and you're even creating history! saying that russia would of definitely defeated Hitler with no american help, and then probably created a soviet state.... and you stop there as if that would of been a good thing! im just dumbfounded to be honest! and then you continue on to reduce america's role in the cold war as solely based on the production of nuclear weapons. You therefore obviously have very little knowledge of the cold war. and very little appreciation of America's influence over the 20th century A few people here do not appreciate the lessons of history and even the history itself. you have to look at the current situation in its own context, and in context with what has happened in the past. and that is why in this day and age, we cannot be anti-war. Ok thats a broad statement, but its logical. i am anti-war and anti-violence in my personal morals....however i recognise the fact that other people are not anti-war and anti-violence....therefore i realise that for me and my country to be protected - we have to be pro-war and pro-violence. Its got nothing to do with us - we could be as peace loving and diplomatic as we want. It has everything to do with the other side. and in large part, they are not peace loving and diplomatic that is the reality of the world we live in. war is the last option, but sadly and ultimately, it is often the one we have to take. As for the Iraq war - webby made a good point about planting the WMDs. why didnt we? and the response to his question has been astoundingly weak. Everyone seems so willing to believe that the american government, corporations, CIA, FBI alongside the UK, Australian, Japanese, Polish etc etc governments and their intelligence agencies, were all in on a vast conspiracy to trick the world into going to war with Iraq so that george bush's friends could get slightly richer from oil sales. And yet, you same people say that planting traces of a biological weapon in a barrel in the Iraqi desert is impossible and too easy to discover?? that a journalist would stumble upon the cover up?? The logic has gone with that one i'm afraid it perfectly illustrates how people are willing to go over the top with their criticism of america, and not criticise the ones who truly deserve it
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 19, 2005 19:51:17 GMT -5
it's just that I think the Cold War was a ridiculous period in time, the power of the Soviet Union was totally overestimated. I never said Bush went to war because of oil. That's the most stupid argument someone can come up with, because look how much the US have spent on the war, it would take ages to get some profit out of that. Yes, the US could have planted traces of WMD in a barrel, but there's always a leak. Some guy retires later and he decides to write a book because he wants everyone to know the truth. Think about how that would damage the image of the US, think about all the governments that would be pissed off. As for your last sentence; who are the ones that truly deserve it? The Muslims, the Middle-East? I'd like to hear it from you. writing whilst drunk here so forgive me for any bollox! lol Currian - gotta say straight off that my post wasnt directed all at you. hope you didnt think i was just going at you - obviously the first few paragraphs i wrote were to you, but most of the post was a general thing to anyone interested as for your points which i quoted above, firstly i dont think its possible to over-estimate the power of the soviet union when it posessed thousands of nuclear bombs secondly, the bit about america going to war over oil is a common viewpoint/argument that i was talking about and not directed specifically at you (as i mentioned above) thirdly, your explanation for the US not planting evidence of WMDs is still weak. the planting of WMDs is no lesser or greater an issue than the planting and manipulating of intelligence that the US government is currently being accused of. the image damage is still the same and the tagging of Bush as a liar would still be the same and the ones who truly deserve it....well i guess those are the bad guys! whether they are black, white, albino, christian, muslim, atheist, eastern, western or australian...... it doesnt matter. like i said, everything should be judged on the facts, context, and history. and given that, i find it hard to believe how you can criticise america for guantanemo bay yet make no mention of the human rights abuses currently going on in Zimbabwe, North Korea, China, and so on..... saddam hussein was a confirmed war criminal - it was a disgrace on the international community and the downright pathetic UN that he wasnt removed and jailed after the first gulf war. what were we waiting for? its like letting a proven murderer live alongside the general public, totally unpunished, for a decade, with the power to use weapons that could kill again.....would you want that? would you tolerate that?? the UN did. and thats why its a joke. and thats partly why america and Bush now feel they have to provide the leadership and influence in upholding the laws and freedoms most of us hold dear. Simply because few others will I say it again - america has made many mistakes. but others have made many many more. i hope this post is as constructive as my last! lol. i can barely see at this point.... but opinions are whats it all about. its all good. interesting thread so far!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 21, 2005 14:52:05 GMT -5
lets change gears slightly
America, America God shed His grace on thee By Marie Jon' MichNews.com Nov 21, 2005
America, you must be asleep. You received a letter from two men named Al; Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi, on Oct 11, 2005, laying out the full plan on just how these two world-wide known terrorists were going to win the debate in America. Unfortunately, it seems that the American public is buying into their plan. Bill Clinton is helping them do so. The AP reported: "Former President Bill Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war."
Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi want our government to cut and run and leave behind millions of innocent Iraqi people left to be slaughtered by the same Islamic fascists that are causing the trouble we are seeing all over the world. Just this week, we had a senior Congressman call for a total withdrawal from Iraq. What is he thinking? Doesn't he know that he is politicizing the war at our country's and troops' expense? The Congressman, whose name is John Murtha, sparked quite a controversy when he said: "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency; They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
He then went even further as he called for our troops to be removed from Iraq. I do not care if this man served in Vietnam. A liar named Senator John F. Kerry also served in Vietnam and made false accusations about the troops.
Just as in Vietnam, our troops are being subverted. The very same neo-communists bastions of anti-American pacifists in this country are doing it all over again. America, wake up. This is not a quagmire. Vietnam is not only past history, but a despicable one at that. Millions of Vietnamese people were killed brutally after America withdrew her presence from there. Learn from past history when it comes to being swayed by the wrong voices that do not speak the truth.
The Democrats are no longer a party that is telling the truth about Iraq. Their main enabler, the mainstream media, is doing the very same ugly spin and giving daily to our enemies more lies to help undo all the good that we have done.
In Iraq and where ever else they hang their turbans and call home, terrorists are listening to a very unseemly and troubling disingenuous debate. The enabler of the Democrats, the mainstream media, are 90% far left in their political beliefs, and are eager to give America the shaft for the political gain of their preferred Party.
These men and women of the old media have become a menace. They are a powerful group who has no conscience to the health and well-being of a nation. There is not much truth being told in the old media. America is fed disinformation and leftist propaganda. The media in many ways seems to be running the country. They are poisoning the well of truthful information regarding winning the war on terror by trying to depose a sitting president.
At the same time, the media helps humiliate our brave and courageous troops by printing the lies about them. This all started with Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib is not an accurate reflection of our awesome troops who serve their country bravely and willingly. Those few who disgraced the uniform and the country were dealt with, and are serving time. But the media could not wait to tell you ad nausea what went on. The New York Times alone ran a streak of Abu Ghraib stories 37 days in a row.
We all know the many lies about the troops that have been generated by the American media. Those lies have also caused more hate towards our troops. We were also told lies about Koran's being flushed down toilets and other falsehoods about Gitmo. Our troops are being told daily that our president lied to them about why they are in Iraq.
The Democrats and the media are the villains and the real problems as to why America is loosing her will to do what is noble and good. America has a strategy, and an exit plan. We will leave when the Iraqi people are able to take care of themselves--and when we are asked to do so by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi's will hold another election on December 15th, 2005.
America has done a more-than stellar job in Iraq. A real democracy is blooming. Be proud that freedom is on the march. America, God shed his grace on thee with patience and fortitude to stay the course. Remember, we got a letter from two men named Al. Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi are nodding their heads with agreement as the shameful Democrats spew the same gutless dribble to undermine a president and weaken his ability to lead our nation to victory. The patriots of America will not let them prevail.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 21, 2005 15:42:04 GMT -5
America has done a more-than stellar job in Iraq. A real democracy is blooming. Be proud that freedom is on the march. thats not what my Iraqi friends tell me, but if a journalist wrote it, then it must be true.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Nov 21, 2005 16:22:46 GMT -5
Do you really think that's the reason why Bush attacked? That he's such a brave, noble man to attack Iraq because of people that lived without freedom? Why wouldn't he attack North-Korea, Indonesia, Cuba or maybe even Russia? (I mean Putin isn't really the guy that gives you freedom of speech - saw a documentary lately) Yes, people make mistakes, whether in their personal lives or on a larger scale, yet we have to learn from our mistakes and not continue mistaking. And that's were we differ. I think the US is still making mistakes and you don't. Presidents dont attack countries, it's slightly more complex than that my friend... "The US is still making mistakes and you don't ..." Who's you? The armchair generals ? cheers
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 21, 2005 17:27:19 GMT -5
thats not what my Iraqi friends tell me, but if a journalist wrote it, then it must be true. Come on Globe, you must know that it's propaganda! (or were you just being sarcastic? ) yeah, that was the biggest piece of sarcasm ever known to mankind currian. Couldnt you tell by the look on my face?
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 21, 2005 17:43:08 GMT -5
You is daysleeper and Bush has the command over the army hasn't he (correct me if I'm wrong) so in the end he's the one that 'attacks' a country. He may be Commander in Chief but he can't just wake up one morning and decide to go to war. As far as i'm aware, he needs the approval of congress/senate. someone with greater understanding of american politics can answer that. But in the UK Blair needed the approval of parliament to go to war. he got if from a vast majority of MPs including his own party which is centre-left. and i'm pretty sure the same scenario occurred in the US. whether you agree with Live4evr or not - the guy was trying to get the point over that the democrats shouldnt play politics with this issue so much, especially when it comes to pulling the troops out. They're in there now, and whatever mess anyone feels they have created, they are the only people who can bring some security to the country until it has a fully functional government and security force! If America left now, the country would fall into anarchy and thats what they're trying to avoid! An exit strategy is needed but the troops continued presence should be unquestioned at this stage. If they left now, the UN would not take over. That is the saddest thing. Several countries like France would not allow the UN to provide a peace keeping force as they dont want to be seen supporting America's war. anyone who thinks the French care more about the Iraqi people than the Americans do is seriously naive. the UN is all about games and politics and very little about helping people, and even less about upholding international law. What is the UN there for if not to uphold international law? Yet they continue to allow known war criminals like Saddam, to lead countries. and playing devils advocate - if you believe the iraq war was illegal, why arent the UN prosecuting Bush and Blair?? Its because the UN has no power. The power is with the individual countries, not the collective UN. the collective group only exerts its power when all the countries happen to agree on a direction (and how often has that happened? Kosovo and the 1st gulf war is all i can think of...)
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 21, 2005 17:58:10 GMT -5
I think you maybe answered your own question there DS. The reason the UN wont procecute Bush or Blair is because they probably dont have the power too, just like they dont have the power to get rid of leaders like Saddam. Well not without force anyway.
I wouldnt say that France cares about the Iraqi people more than the Americans. Who is? The reason France wont take part in this whole charade is becaue the majority of the French people were against it from day one. So were the majority of people in the UK according to most opinion polls, pity Blair didnt maybe take a bit more notice of that.
Im not sure the point live4ever is trying to get across. Strikes me that he just keeps copying & pasting articles from Rebuplican based media without ever really saying much about anything. Like I say, he'll make a great politician or maybe a PR man. Same thing really these days though I guess eh?
Also, yeah maybe the Democrats shouldnt use Iraq to make political points, but the Tories and the Lib Dems are doing the same thing here, they are politicians afterall, they'l do anything to score a cheap point against the oposition.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 21, 2005 18:16:21 GMT -5
Speaking of nuclear weapons, why are the US allowed to have nuclear weapons and all their enemies not? That's just too hypocritic. . But do you really think the Soviets would have used these nuclear bombs? They would get the whole world after them and that would be the end of the Union. I think you've answered your own question with that one Again another controversial one, but as far as i can see, in this current world it is essential that the US has the bomb and that we do our best to stop others creating a nuclear arsenal in the ideal world, the only nuclear weapons would be owned by the UN/NATO and would only be used in extreme circumstances if there was a serious breach of international law by a country. but again, this aint the ideal world, this is reality. And the reality is, the UN is a joke who simply wouldnt be trusted with such a power. and that america is still the worlds only democratic superpower and further reality is, that if you eradicated all nuclear weapons tonight, by tomorrow morning a dozen nations (yes including america) would start producing ones in secret. that is unavoidable and proves the need for a continuing nuclear deterrent and regulation. the western world has had its 'nuclear war'. the cold war was it, thankfully without anything being fired. common sense prevailed. Now we have a situation where a few countries are becoming more powerful and acting like big boys with their shiny new big toys - we need to convince them that nuclear warfare is not the way forward. until we do that, we need America to have the bomb and to deny it to others as much as possible. the UN is making some progress here, however it seems to be driven by the US and China, rather than a broad coalition. surprise, surprise... Again, this comes down to the different stances the left and right wings take on it. But ive thought this stuff over and logically, these are the answers i came to. If someone can logically and constructively explain to me why im wrong then please do. But any more "war is bad. nuclear weapons are bad. america is bad. drugs are bad. mmm kay" posts and i'm gonna go nuts!! lol
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 21, 2005 18:28:35 GMT -5
No, Daysleeper understands what i'm on about.... his second to last post shows that i'm too busy right now to interpret the articles in a way DS did.... why am i posting them? Because everything in the media is negative and against Bush. I'm not saying Bush is an amazing president, cos hes far from it, and the war in Iraq is def not going well, but the other side needs to be looked at too. We all understand the democrats side bc that is whats portrayed in the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC...the only real right wing station is Fox News which people dismiss as propaganda....nor do i know why, CNN is not any better... I try to watch all the stations and read from various scoures to get as much balanced view as possible... by ignoring these articles just bc they are from a different point of view is ignorant, but that's your choice... I'll let Day Sleeper continue the debate, he seems to have more respect and hes doing a damn good job....respect *Ali G Flick* lol right, enough of that, but i hope you see where i'm coming from now...every post i make in this forum gets misinterpreted....the debate now is not was the Iraq War bad, was Saddam bad....but rather the plan for the future and which consists of the Dems to stop playing politics with the situation, which is backfiring on them anyway so they are foolish on many aspects for continuing it... whatever, there is no right or wrong....why cant you people see that....and there will be no right or wrong until we see how the whole situation pans out and that will take atleast a decade....but you have to have faith, because if you dont, then you're doomed to fail, arnt you?
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 21, 2005 18:52:26 GMT -5
I think you maybe answered your own question there DS. The reason the UN wont procecute Bush or Blair is because they probably dont have the power too, just like they dont have the power to get rid of leaders like Saddam. Well not without force anyway. . hey we started our posts with the same sentences! id say great minds think alike....but well....ya know ;D btw, i know i answered my own question - that was my intention... wasnt it obvious?.... actually 'on paper' the UN has all the power it needs (backed by NATO), but in reality it has little power. We have our international laws but whether or not the UN chooses to uphold them, is the key to its power. It doesnt choose to enforce them. Why? because the countries that compromise the UN simply dont want to, because they're all out for their own good! - i keep saying the UN, but i seem to remember its actually a different international body that prosecutes war criminals, anyone confirm that? - whoever it is, my point is the same - and its that the international community consistently fails to uphold its own laws and exert its powers due to the individual goals and beliefs of the countries that compromise it, and its own incompetance Getting back to Iraq, at the time of going to war i seem to remember most public opinion polls were actually in favour of the war, and the the decline in support actually occurred after it ended. i could well be wrong, but i thought public opinion was in favour of it and that this has been twisted by the far left who claim the opposite the major UK newspapers (barring the mirror and the guardian i think) were in favour and in terms of people i spoke to at the time, id guess 70% + were in favour. i dunno, maybe it was just my area but i was always baffled by the perception the public was against it I dont agree with a lot of what live4evr has posted/wrote/pasted but some of the points are kosher, in my opinion. specifically the one about democrats scoring points - unfortunately as you said, it is a dark side of politics all us normal people hate, but it never seems to go away...
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 21, 2005 19:10:36 GMT -5
Well I seem to remember The Sun of all papers having a poll before the war started and 80% of people were opposed the war. When it had started they did another poll and the majority of people said that they were behind the troops 100%
I honestly dont know one person who thinks the whole thing was a good idea. That includes the 2 Iraqi blokes I know.
Speaking of opinion polls, the MOD carried one out in Iraq last month. Makes pretty interesting findings:-
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 21, 2005 19:26:20 GMT -5
No, Daysleeper understands what i'm on about.... his second to last post shows that i'm too busy right now to interpret the articles in a way DS did.... I try to watch all the stations and read from various scoures to get as much balanced view as possible... by ignoring these articles just bc they are from a different point of view is ignorant, but that's your choice... well to be honest i skip read the articles! i'm not a fan of propaganda, whether its left or right wing so im not gonna spend too much time on stuff like that. Although i agree with you completely that people need to look at both sides of the argument and be much more open minded. I find it strange that so many people give Michael Moore the time of day, yet anything from Fox News is dismissed instantly as trash.... anyway, maybe people would take your stuff more seriously if you posted more of your own thoughts or gave some more unbiased views that you should have from all those news sources... Everything i posted in this thread is my own opinions and thoughts on the whole situation. Most of my stuff is based on logic - thats the angle i try to look at it all from. And i've yet to see someone post back to me and rip my arguments apart, logically. id actually love to see that! would really get this debate going then coz id have to rethink and actually start doing some research....
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Nov 21, 2005 19:29:31 GMT -5
The UN should pay it's fucking traffic tickets owed to the city of New York , we wouldn't have a budget problem then.....
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Nov 21, 2005 19:35:17 GMT -5
For Currian:
The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions ...
The resolution passed by the House authorized Bush to commit U.S. troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions
It required Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce those resolutions had failed.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 21, 2005 19:54:25 GMT -5
Well I seem to remember The Sun of all papers having a poll before the war started and 80% of people were opposed the war. When it had started they did another poll and the majority of people said that they were behind the troops 100% I honestly dont know one person who thinks the whole thing was a good idea. That includes the 2 Iraqi blokes I know. Speaking of opinion polls, the MOD carried one out in Iraq last month. Makes pretty interesting findings:- • Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province; • 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops; • less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security; • 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation; • 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened; • 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces. interesting in a way, yeah. ok playing complete devils advocate here - 45% say attacking the troops is justified - so they are condoning terrorism and bizarrely believing that attacking the troops will lead to the coalition withdrawal rather than actually contributing to its stay? 43 % believe conditions for peace have worsened- ok thats the ultimate in propaganda. how about we flip that round and say 57% say conditions for peace have stayed the same or improved? looks nicer now! and presumably 99% of that 57% say coalition forces werent responsible for that improvement....well who was? where the logic? lol so easy to do this shit! no wonder news stations fuck with the facts and figures so much.... anything can be manipulated overall impression from that poll is that a slim majority of Iraqi's are anti-terrorism and have greater hope for long term peace and stability, however they want the troops out to accomplish this. fairplay. bring the troops out tomorrow though, kiss goodbye to any hopes of peace and stability be far more interesting to see a poll like that conducted in a 2 or 3 years time. i'll check out the UK pre-war polls tomorrow. i can never recall seeing an 80% against poll. 60% in favour is the general theme i remember....but maybe others can remember better?
|
|
|
Post by mape on Nov 21, 2005 21:38:35 GMT -5
I find it strange that so many people give Michael Moore the time of day, yet anything from Fox News is dismissed instantly as trash.... It's cos Michael Moore makes documentaries/movies while on the other hand Fox News is a mainstream source where people get news from. They each have different standards they have to meet. As for the UN - they did not have much power to start with and now they are not going to be taken seriously in any way after they were shown up by the US going into Iraq against their advice. It's a dangerous precidence that has been set now that countries will cite in the future. Anyway, the longer the US stays in Iraq the only thing that's gonna happen is more tax money spent, and more soldiers coming home in body bags. Iraq isn't going to get any better. Whether the coalition forces leave now or in the future, Iraq is still screwed in whatever way you want to look at it. Sure Saddam is gone, but on the other hand the country is a pile of rubble now, there is no enforcement of law, living conditions are terrible, and it will probably take 50 years and an amount of money that no one will be will to pay to rebuild the country. Now you also have to think of the massive fallout that will occur in the years to come in the Arab world. How many terrorists have been created now? Just imagine some kid that got his family killed off by and errant bomb dropped from a coalition plane - you think he's gonna care how many innocent people die when he walks into a crowded market and blows himself up? This mess isn't going to be sorted out any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 22, 2005 4:55:22 GMT -5
Iraq isn't going to get any better. Whether the coalition forces leave now or in the future, Iraq is still screwed in whatever way you want to look at it. Sure Saddam is gone, but on the other hand the country is a pile of rubble now, there is no enforcement of law, living conditions are terrible, and it will probably take 50 years and an amount of money that no one will be will to pay to rebuild the country. thats exactly the point Ive been trying to make. youve hit the nail on the head for me there mape. what exactly have we achieved/going to achieve with these actions in iraq? i find it funny how some people dont like the government spending money on things such as the public sevices but they are willing to support them pour billions down the drain on iraq. DS I wasnt trying to make any points with that poll, just thought it made some interesting findings. I read about it in the Telegraph. Seemingly the UK government have wanted it to be kept quiet but the Telegraph were leaked a copy of it.
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 22, 2005 23:54:07 GMT -5
The UN should pay it's fucking traffic tickets owed to the city of New York , we wouldn't have a budget problem then..... I've never seen webby post the F word ? Now I'm madferrit ! They'd ban you on inet for that ! ask me , topdog and pixie !
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 23, 2005 18:50:25 GMT -5
As for the poll results, they dont mean a damn thing (esp internet polls)
I just studied sampling in statsitics and most polls suffer from non response bias. The people with strong feelings (usually negative) will respond, while others wont so much.
Case and point: 55% or so ppl dis-approved of Bush before the 2004 election, yet he still won....
so backing up your opinions with polls is a poor way to go, bc almost all polls are bias in some way....
i'm glad i took stat, v useful class
|
|