Printable View
True. The 9/11 wasn't justified either, but given the circumstances, it was more likely and understandable. I'm sure you agree that a naked woman doesn't belong to a mensroom and she's probably more likely to be raped than elsewhere. Using common sense isn't forbidden to anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Lets see, Eki seems to think America is the bain of all evil, or at least, his arguments would lead someone to think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
AS for which nations are less committed to human rights and freedoms of their citizen through monitoring and "spying" on their own citizens, I suspect there are lots. Some democracies have laws and rights to intercept through wire taps and email surveillance at a level that would shock you. Canadians have less rights on paper for a lot of this than Americans do, even with the Patriot act. The fact remains that many western nations have a surveillance apparatus that can be used on its own citizens for many reasons. Police forces conduct wire taps and survelliance all the time for various reasons. That said, most have laws and rights also for the citizen that are still respected and my comments were in rebuttals to SOD's comments. His assertion that the US spies on its own people looking good on America gives me the idea he is naive to how much survelliance we all live under. I dislike it but very few western nations have put as much effort into the rights of its own citizens through the last few years as the Yanks have. Their civil liberties rights crusaders in the form of the ACLU are far more principled and determined to define and protect those rights then you would realize.
Most western nations will have and override their constitution to protect the state. In the US, I suggest there is more overrides and hurdles to infringe on human rights than in most nations....
You tell me how the Iraq war has stopped the suffering, or even improved world's economy? You say under Saddam's regime 20,000 Iraqis were killed yearly, the UN says violence killed 34,000 Iraqis last year. According to opinion polls, majority of Iraqis say they had it better under Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The fact you had to have that pointed out to your Eki makes me wonder.
9/11 was the act of a man who felt that to kill the infidel Americans in their homeland was to make things better for the people of the middle east. He felt it is better to kill infidels in a jihad against America then to reform and make leaders in the Middle East respect and care for the people. Bin Laden does not believe in human rights, he only believes in the right of Islam to rule the world. He is NOT the leader of the islamic world, but he thinks he should be. He would impose the kind of tyranny on the world that Saddam, Hitler and Stalin would if left unopposed. THose who refuse to see this cant complain when it happens to them.
There was NO right reason to attack the US. You condone the thinking behind this while condemning the act Eki. IT is condoning the rapist again.....Regardless of where you think the US "Belongs" it does not in any way justify any terrorist attack on the US.
The US was in that part of the world because Saddam wont leave his neighbours alone, and THAT if I am not mistaken was because the UN knows that the UK and the US were the only nations willing to spend their money, send their soldiers there and do the job of enforcing the "cease fire" following the war to libreate Kuwait. Again, Saddam does something, the US reacts. IF Saddam was a great humanitarian, the US is not in the Middle East in any real capacity. Until the Kuwaiti conflict, they were only there in a civilian capacity helping improve the technology of oil field extraction. The Military of the US was NOT allowed to be in Saudi Arabia until Saddam invaded Kuwait and were massing on the Saudi Border. This gave the King Fahd the willies, and he invited the US in to protect his nation. Notice they are out of there now, but this was the flimsy premise Bin Laden used to attack the US.
You cannot keep condoning the acts of terrorists by saying the US deserved it. You are right back in the men's room when you do that Eki...
They were in that part of the world well before Saddam had any power at all, they even helped Saddam into power and supported him in his war against his neighbour Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Show me the polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I didn't say the war was a perfect solution. I will tell you also that if 34000 have died in the violence, it should be noted almost that many were dying every year. How many died when he invaded Kuwait and then were killed trying to defend their occupation of that nation? How many died because he invaded Iran? How many a year was he killing just by "keeping" the country in check? How many Kurds did the UN have to feed and help along with NGO's and the US military when the Gulf war ended?? How much suffereing did this man cause in the last 30 years? I can tell you this much, it is WAY more than 34000 since the war to remove him was commenced. What is more, it isn't the Americans doing the killing anymore, it is Baathist remnants, Iranian insurgents and Shiite radicals doing the killing. Also something called "Al Quaida" in Iraq. If the American Army was the sole reason they were dying, your arguments would hold water. However, the US is losing their own now trying to stop this. You want an oppressive dictator to preserve life? Oh boy Eki, this is why I have so much disdain for your arguments. You would justify anyone to live in a situation like this to keep some peace?
Regardless of why the Americans invaded, in 10 years I suspect Iraq is a LOT better off. Saddam would have passed on the torch to Uday and Qusay, and nothing much would have changed for the better, even if they decided terrortorial ambitions beyond their borders were not a good idea. NO for the last 30 years it was proven that Saddam had no scruples in what he would do. In MY world, we are better off with him gone. In your world, he would be in power so it wouldnt' offend your princples. That is the difference, you condone the actions of these people, I deplore them.
Yes, they did, Iran is not a friend of the US either. Iran really isn't any different than Saddam's Iraq on a lot of levels. The US made a bad decision to back Saddam as the lesser of two evils. That however was not George Bush's decision. What is more, where were the Americans actually holding ground and putting troops on the ground in the Middle East for purposes of occupation? WHERE? Did it ever occur to you the factor of the Americans being willing to intercede to protect oil producing powers and the flow of oil on the free market is what has kept the peace in this part of the world for as long as it had been outside of Saddam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Did it ever occur to you if the US doesn't try to protect the free sale of oil on a free market basis, no one's interests save a dictator trying to control the oil field would gain? The world's economy runs on oil. WW2 was won because of the control of oil. Saddam's terrortorial ambitions were based on controllling the oil. The Americans make lots of mistakes, but when they realized this dog was rabid, they made the decision to put him down. You would just hope he wouldn't bite you Eki. That is the ostrich defense. It didn't work so well for Neville Chamberlain either.....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Poll: Iraqis out of patience
By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup
By Khalid Mohammed, AP
The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.
The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. (Related item: Key findings)
But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."
That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.
The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.
The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings.
"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."
'I would shoot ... right now'
Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions.
Interviews were conducted between March 22 and April 2, with the exception of the governate of Sulaymaniya where interviews ran through April 9. All interviews were conducted in person in the respondent’s home, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The cooperation rate — the percentage of those contacted who agreed to be interviewed — was 98%.
Two of the three governates in the predominantly Kurdish region, which has its own administrative agencies and has been largely independent from Baghdad for the past decade, did not participate in the poll. To have a full representation of Kurdish views in the poll, additional interviews in the third governate, Sulaymaniya, were conducted.
The margin of sampling error for the poll is +/- two percentage points.
The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people.
The Bush administration has contended that the growing resistance, which has killed at least 115 Americans this month, is the work of isolated cells of former regime members or religious fanatics, often from outside Iraq.
Iraqis interviewed in Baghdad say ordinary people have lost patience with the U.S. effort to crush the insurgency and rebuild Iraq.
"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."
Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."
In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.
Americans regard their men and women in uniform as liberators who are trying to help Iraq. But the Iraqis now see them as a threat and focus their anger on them.
"When they pass by on the street, we are curious, so we go out to look and they immediately point their gun at you," says Muia, the bicycle shop owner.
Except for the Kurds, such feelings are widely held. For example:
Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire.
58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly.
60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques.
46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women.
Only 11% of Iraqis say coalition forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.
The Defense Department, which was shown the survey results Wednesday, said it doesn't respond to polls. But in a statement, it noted that Iraqis say their lives are getting better and said that the fact the poll could be taken indicated increased freedom in Iraq.
Secondhand information
That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.
Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now)
Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC.
More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents.
Jalal Abbas, 20, a student in Baghdad, says it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers."
Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation."
He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again."
The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush.
Marines patrolling around Fallujah this week say they can feel the Iraqi anger every day, even when the two sides aren't shooting.
Marine Lance Cpl. Wes Monks, 23, of Springfield, Ore., says that as he drives around the restive, mostly Sunni city, he sees Iraqis with a knowing, "sarcastic smile. You see it every day. ... We're always the last one to find out when we run over a mine."
"I can see their point of view," says Marine Lance Cpl. Mathew Leifi, 20, of Orange, Calif. "If anyone rolled up on my street, I'd be pissed, too."
Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues.
Everywhere else in Iraq, it's a different story. Not surprisingly, the Sunni strongholds that benefited most from Saddam's regime are the most negative in their opinion of the new Iraq. Fewer than 20% of people in those areas call the war's outcome positive.
Iraqis expected huge improvements in all aspects of their economy within weeks of Saddam's overthrow, and most say there have been at least some improvements. But a year after Bush declared major hostilities in Iraq over,
Very good Eki, read it all. They ARE GLAD SADDAM IS GONE!!!! Thank you for proving my point. A lot of it is criticism on how the Americans are handling the peace. Again, something I have been not a fan of either.
Still, the premise that Iraq would be better off under Saddam is not proven by your post here.
You should READ the whole article Eki. There is more points proving what I have been saying then you can imagine.
IT says to me that most Iraqi's have little day to day contact with the Americans, so while they dont' like the fact they are there still, no one disputes that they have a chance at a better life now. Kurd's are unhappy with the Americans but I dont' see any point of view in here that says to me they want Saddam back either. The headline is highly misleading. They may be out of patience, they may not like the US there, but until the constant attacks on minority groups, Iraqi police and military units stops, the Americans are being asked to stay by the Iraqi government. If you think this isn't the reality, fine, but understand when Bush said they would now leave if asked to, Maliki didn't say for the US to get out.
Your premise has always been that Iraq would be better off with out having Saddam being removed. This article says despite all the crap that is going on, and how they don't like the Americans there, they aren't asking for Saddam to come back and they do feel they have a shot at a better life now. My argument all along.....
That was just one poll interpeted by one newspaper, here's another:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...m/itemID/14282
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.
There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.
In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.
The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group’s findings in the United States, and Hussein’s execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."
Polling Data
Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better today
5%
Better before
90%
Not sure
5%
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.