Those Bad Ol' Iraqis?
I'm curious, what exactly is it that is supposed to be so bad about the Iraqi people?
Saddam was our project gone bad, our fault, our mess... we did that to them, so we can't blame them for their idiot leader, not like us, we are fully to blame for our idiot leader.
Even then, they were no threat and complying with the sanctions and UN demands when we invaded.
They are not to blame for the influx of foreign terrorists, we took away all of their rights and arms, so they could not remove them if they wanted to... welcome to the American police state dream, coming to your home soon.
The Iraqi insurgency is exactly what we would do in their shoes with an occupying invader setting-up a puppet government voting to give away their natural resources and their right under international law.
They seem to be very nice and cool people caught in a crappy situation doing precisely what anyone else would do. Not bad people at all.
I'm just amazed that more are not fighting for their sovereignty and freedom.
When we attacked Iraq, we forgot that cliche quote "be close to your friends, be even closer to your enemies".
I don't really know where the idea came, media is my guess, but for some reason America has this idea that the Iraqi people are sub-human and different from us.
It is Americas inability to look from someone else's perspective that allows us to keep others in extreme poverty and disallows us from seeing the intents of our "enemies", resulting in a loss for us since we do not understand their culture.
Good point, by the same token, since when were the Iraqi people our enemy? Which is my point and I know you were not saying they were/are... the whole thing is a joke.
The government needed to make the Iraq and their terrorists the enemy for justification of an attack. Enemy wouldn't be the best word for the Iraqi people, horrible word actually (my bad), but it still doesn't change the fact that we look down upon them and that we don't understand their way of life.
It is that damn white supremecy thing where we think we are better than everyone else and spread (shove down throat) what works for us while ignoring every bit of evidence that suggests that it won't work.
The government needed to make the Iraq and their terrorists ...
Their terrorists? America created the insurgency. There was no Iraqi terrorism before that. Those Iraqi terrrorist were a creation of American wacko extremists. America only got what it wanted when America created the insurgency in 2003.
Yes, that is what acutally happened but that wasn't what was told on Fox News. The government needed to make a connection between Iraq and the terrorists and they needed to make them the enemy.
The government needed to make the Iraq and their terrorists the enemy for justification of an attack. Enemy wouldn't be the best word for the Iraqi people, horrible word actually (my bad), but it still doesn't change the fact that we look down upon them and that we don't understand their way of life.
It is that damn white supremecy thing where we think we are better than everyone else and spread (shove down throat) what works for us while ignoring every bit of evidence that suggests that it won't work.
Who's we?:eyebrow:
Yes, that is what acutally happened but that wasn't what was told on Fox News. The government needed to make a connection between Iraq and the terrorists and they needed to make them the enemy.
Who's we?:eyebrow:
America.
Bullshit. You have no evidence that America hates Iraqis. As a matter of fact you can't prove the administration hates Iraqis. They say they are trying to help Iraqis, it's just not working out well.
I don't hate Iraqis. My brother doesn't hate Iraqis. Most of the returning soldiers claim they like Iraqis.
The entire thread is based on a false premise. :tinfoil:
I'd be surprised to find that the average American thought the average Iraqi isn't scarey. Specially if they're wearing Muslim dress. Hasn't it been argued quite vehemently that someone wearing a burqa is 'suspicious' at the least?
They are only scary when they wear that shit here. Thinking they are scary is not hating them, either.
Women are suspicious, in a burka, more so.
And what do you know about the average American...there are none in the Cellar. We are all clearly above average. :p
uhuh...lol if you say so Bruce.
I never said that we hate them, just that in order to justify an attack we need to make them the enemy and make it seem like we are going out of our way to help them because they are too primitive and barbaric to do it by themselves.
This racist way of thinking is why we are losing. We think we are better them so we underestimated them and their culture.
Maybe contempt is the right word?
Or ambivalence....... of the individual Iraqi.
Come to think of it, they're the ones that messed up the grand scheme of things. The war would have been over long ago if it weren't for them.:idea:
i dont think anything went wrong with the plan, the US government chose to do what it's doing in Iraq.
At any cost they needed control of the oil and keeping Iraq in turmoil is the way they're choosing to do it.
they're not helping them or rebuidling anything that makes up for the amount of destruction they're causing, it's all a big lie, listen to the soldiers that come back (check google video). for every school that's built - ten are demolished, they're destroying it on purpose.
I never meant to imply the American people... The Administration with the help of certain press agencies are the culprits.
There are huge cultural differences between the Arab world and the Western world. Major ones being:
- Religion. Islam is a large part of an average Iraqi's daily life - more than Christianity is part of an average Westerner's
- Equality/ diversity - partly because of the above, partly because of tribal traditions still extant, there are very different views about the place of women in society in most Arab countries and the treatment of homosexuals
- The weapons/ macho culture. Very much an eye for an eye, and weapons are often let off in celebration/ protest. They love a bit of burning in effigy too
Hmmmm....
Sorry - I should have said that Islam is more a part of a Muslim's life...
But it was meant to be a lighthearted parallel anyway
Thanks for the clarification.
However, I always thought the idea that Iraq as a haven for al qaeda to be hilarious. It, as a secular middle eastern state is the exact opposite of what they wanted for the Arab area, an abomination much less the world.
The illegal US invasion/occupation made it more of a haven for al qaeda than it ever would have been as is.
Well, I only meant to compare Iraqis to Christian fundamentals... May have missed the mark.
i dint think anything went wrong with the plan, the US government chose to do what it's doing in Iraq.
At any cost they needed control of the oil and keeping Iraq in turmoil is the way they're choosing to do it.
they're not helping them or rebuidling anything that makes up for the amount of destruction they're causing, it's all a big lie, listen to the soldiers that come back (check google video). for every school that's built - ten are demolished, they're destroying it on purpose.
Welcome to the Cellar. :D You are claiming the coalition forces are intentionally destroying schools for no reason other than orders from above?
I'm can't swallow that one without some proof or at least a plausible reason. It just doesn't float. I can see the Islamic extremists destroying secular schools and trying to keep girls out of classes, but not "our" side.
Control the oil? No, just knock out Saddam and the now free, formerly oppressed Iraqis, will be so grateful we'll be in like Flynn. Occam's Razor. Never assume an evil plan when stupidity explains it. Actually turmoil isn't to our advantage, but a solid bloc would be worse. As long as Saddam was in power there was no danger of that.
Well, I only meant to compare Iraqis to Christian fundamentals... May have missed the mark.
How are the two remotely alike?
Iraq was pretty secular.
Then why is there so much hatred between the Sunnis and shias. And both of them with the Kurds. Since Iraqi is a tag that came with the cobbling together Iraq, of three enemies, by outside forces, there's really no grounds for national heritage or pride. Make a democracy implausible. :(
There is a long history of social division between the two, encouraged and made far worse by Saddam. It is thought of, by them, more as a racial thing than religious. They are all Muslim.
How are the two remotely alike?
- Religion. Islam is a large part of an average Iraqi's daily life - more than Christianity is part of an average Westerner's
- Equality/ diversity - partly because of the above, partly because of tribal traditions still extant, there are very different views about the place of women in society in most Arab countries and the treatment of homosexuals
- The weapons/ macho culture. Very much an eye for an eye, and weapons are often let off in celebration/ protest. They love a bit of burning in effigy too
Neither was meant as a serious critique on religious/ secular culture, merely a comparison of two extremes that reach round the ends of the spectrum.
Where are you getting your info on the average daily life of the normal Iraqi?
She means more-fundamental-than-usual muslims, methinks.
Then why is there so much hatred between the Sunnis and shias. And both of them with the Kurds. Since Iraqi is a tag that came with the cobbling together Iraq, of three enemies, by outside forces, there's really no grounds for national heritage or pride. Make a democracy implausible. :(
Iraq was more secular than the countries around it, which isn't saying much.
I think there wasn't much violence because it was suppressed under the rule of Saddam.
There is a long history of social division between the two, encouraged and made far worse by Saddam. It is thought of, by them, more as a racial thing than religious. They are all Muslim.
But that's the rub, Muslims come in a variety of flavors like Christians do.
Like the brothers that always beat the hell out of each other but will stand shoulder to shoulder against all outsiders. :haha:
Iraq was more secular than the countries around it, which isn't saying much.
I think there wasn't much violence because it was suppressed under the rule of Saddam.
I think you're right at the moment. There have been times in the recent past that Iran, Lebanon, even Saudi Arabia were more secular than presently. But this war has caused the militants to gain influence. :(
Well, I only meant to compare Iraqis to Christian fundamentals... May have missed the mark.
I don't think you're far off. Just stopping everything, every few hours, to pray in an open and highly visible manner. In a way that makes anyone
not participating highly visible also, is a constant reminder that their faith is actively intertwined with everyday life. More so than a once a week routine. There are Christians the go to church daily, but they don't stop traffic to do so. :D
Try getting out of my old house to go to lunch on Wed or Sun.
...but they don't stop traffic to do so...
"They" sure as hell do, in my town. "They" over-developed their massive plot of land with a massive "recreation center" (bowling alley? movie theatre? shouldn't this money go to mission work?) and now there is no room left for adequate parking.
The solution? Parking across the street at a shopping center, and
stopping traffic along a major road so they can mosey across at a leisurely pace, with uniformed police officers (whom I assume are off duty) acting as crossguards.
I can't wait to start my Satan Worship club and have uniformed police officers stop traffic for me and my buddies because we built a go-cart track on top of our parking lot. We'll also have no problem blocking your driveway, and blasting mega-decibel bells into your home at all hours.
Exactly... separation of church and state. Cops have no place stopping traffic so church folks can park easier.
Crazy.
Cops have no reason to stop traffic for church folk full stop. They're going to heaven anyway right?
snip~The solution? Parking across the street at a shopping center, and stopping traffic along a major road so they can mosey across at a leisurely pace, with uniformed police officers (whom I assume are off duty) acting as crossguards.
I can't wait to start my Satan Worship club and have uniformed police officers stop traffic for me and my buddies because we built a go-cart track on top of our parking lot. We'll also have no problem blocking your driveway, and blasting mega-decibel bells into your home at all hours.
Aha, so that's the root of your discontent. They're runnin' down the hood.:lol:
You can get off duty uniformed cops to direct traffic any time you can afford it. Around here the Pumpkin Patch does that around Halloween.
Exactly... separation of church and state. Cops have no place stopping traffic so church folks can park easier. Crazy.
Don't be silly, your rabidity? rabidness?, is clouding your judgment, now. The police should be on top of any traffic problem, especially when pedestrians are at risk.
It is not a traffic problem, there are not so many of them that they cannot wait for the normal flow of traffic to allow them to enter at their own pace.
It is our tax dollars being used inappropriately. You don't see cops being used at the grocery store on Saturday morning do you? No. Everyone waits and is patient like they should be.
The police, especially off-duty, are free - maybe even bound - to direct traffic to help people. If there were massive, regular crowds of shoppers parking at the church (or anywhere else, for that matter) and walking across busy streets to shop at the mall, someone should be on top of that too. Don't want granma gettin' run over on the way to church any more than on the way to Bed, Bath & Beyond.
The worst traffic in my town/county are around shopping areas on the weekend.
The only place you will ever see a cop in in front of a church, in uniform with their car, city and sheriff.
We have a problem down here because of "political correctness". I don't know if you guys have the same problem in the US, but here the police have to be very careful that they do not offend a Muslim. On the other hand they have to track and infiltrate the Muslim gangs (mostly ex Lebanese), who are into drug trafficking, intimidation, and straight out murder. This causes all of us (non Muslims) to be very suspicious of anyone Muslim, or of Middle Eastern "appearance", which is certainly not fair, but what do you do? These gangs are killing people (usually shooting or knifing), almost on a weekly basis.
Iraq is a mess because we (the "Allies"/Western coalition), made it so by invading in 2003, but does that mean that we should sit back and accept our troops being butchered by Middle Eastern and South Asian terrorists? It is not an easy situation to handle. By the time Obama gets in in 2008, it will be too late to "fix" the problem.
I don't know the answers, and apparently neither do our politicians. :worried:
Of course we should not sit back... we should get them the hell out of there.
Of course we should not sit back... we should get them the hell out of there.
As George W and our John Howard keep saying, it is not that simple. The whole Middle East would collapse into chaos (yes, more so than it already is), and it would probably spread into South Asia (Afghanistan would become even more of a disaster than it already is, and even Pakistan would be under threat).
I fully support our troops, and I also wish that they could be withdrawn, but the evidence and history, shows that this would be a disaster. Iraq is not Vietnam. We cannot just let go, and things will sort themselves out. I just wish that someone in authority had some answers. Vietnam showed us that supporting a government that does not have the support of the people, is a road to failure, but pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will create an explosion of violence. It is a real dilemma. :thepain:
I want to make it clear that they had a parking lot before they chose to build a freakin' bowling alley or whatever on top of it, thus creating a "traffic problem" that wouldn't have existed if they played by the rules the rest of us have to follow, IE use your resources wisely, don't expect special treatment, and in a nutshell: "do unto others" etc. (I humbly suggest they build a pedestrian bridge, instead of shutting down a major road) ...
I think they should rely on their faith to cross the street. I mean, would god let a pedestrian on his way to church get mowed over?
They could have T-shirts made: God Is My Crossing Guard. :rolleyes:
They couldn't have turned the parking lot into a bowling alley without the blessing of the government/taxing authority. They did what any other business would do, the use the property for maximum return benefit.
The entity issuing the permits would certainly be required to revue the traffic impact study, by law. Evidently they felt it was acceptable and planned to adjust the traffic surveillance/control accordingly.
Did you attend the public hearings on the project the planning board holds before giving the green light, and voice your objections? Did you complain to the parking lot owner(supermarket?) that you don't feel they should be enabling these changes?
It is not a traffic problem, there are not so many of them that they cannot wait for the normal flow of traffic to allow them to enter at their own pace.
It is our tax dollars being used inappropriately. You don't see cops being used at the grocery store on Saturday morning do you? No. Everyone waits and is patient like they should be.
Poppycock. The reason there isn't a cop at the grocery store on Saturday morning is not everyone at the store is leaving at the same time. There is a steady flow that's been anticipated and signs, signals and driveways planned accordingly.:cool:
Any time there is a function like a show, rodeo, circus, swap-meet, flea market, where there is surge flows, pedestrian crossing, or unusual changes in traffic patterns, the cops should and will be there.
Sometimes it's a condition of the issued permit, that the sponsor of the event pay for the increased traffic or pedestrian control.
That can be by reimbursing the police department or hiring private rent-a-cops/off duty police, directly.
Of course, you're right. How silly of me to imply that churches get preferential treatment.:rolleyes:
Churches get treatment. That's fine and just. I don't deny that some get too much. But any treatment is not too much treatment; a church should be, legally speaking, no different from any other event or gathering. Cops help out traffic problems at, to copy T3h Bruce, shows, rodeos, circuses, swap-meets, flea markets, etc; theres no reason not to do the same for churches.
Seems that finally the US guvmint is beginning to use brains instead of muscles. But too little, too late?
The US commander in Iraq today said military force alone was "not sufficient" to end the violence and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the US-backed government.
The announcement came as the Pentagon announced the deployment of an extra 2,200 US military police to Iraq to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the latest US-led security crackdown, and the US day-to-day commander in Iraq was reported to have recommended current troop levels are maintained into 2008.
General David Petraeus, a counter-insurgency expert, was picked by Mr Bush in a last attempt to tackle the sectarian violence in Baghdad which is threatening to rip the country apart. US policy in Iraq is at present the deployment of 21,500 more troops to help the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki.
A parallel increase in military police was requested by Gen Petraeus, but at his first news conference in Baghdad since taking charge of American forces last month, he said it was political negotiations with militants that "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".
He said he saw no immediate need for more US combat troops other than those already announced, but a report in the New York Times said his day-to-day commander, Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, had made the confidential assessment that heightened troop levels be maintained until February 2008.
Gen Odierno's view reflects the counter-insurgency doctrine favoured by Gen Petraeus of leaving troops in areas they enter rather than withdrawing and letting insurgents return.
Gen Petraeus today said Baghdad had seen encouraging signs of progress despite "sensational attacks", pointing to a fall in sectarian killings and fewer people leaving their homes in recent weeks in the capital.
But nine US soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bombings this week in spite of a security crackdown now in its fourth week.
And the increase in US forces has not prevented a spate of attacks in the past three days on Shia pilgrims making their way to the holy city of Kerbala. At least 150 have been killed, including more than 100 outside the capital. It was "too early to discern significant trends, [but] there have been a few encouraging signs", Gen Petraeus told reporters.
The attacks - mostly blamed on Sunni insurgents - are seen as attempts to provoke a civil war with Shia militia.
Gen Petraeus said it was "critical" for leaders to halt any drift toward sectarian conflict and added that US forces were ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.
But he saw no role for the Shia militia known as the Mahdi Army, whose fighters guarded pilgrims in the past two years.
He said "extremist elements" in the militia had been engaged in "true excesses" in the past - a reference to suspected gangs killing Sunnis.
The Guardian
Must say, I've seen an interview with Gen.Petraeus some years ago as a group commander and he came over as a down to earth, practical guy who seems to know what job he's doing. Was thinking when I saw the interview, why isn't he in charge?
As George W and our John Howard keep saying, it is not that simple. The whole Middle East would collapse into chaos (yes, more so than it already is), and it would probably spread into South Asia (Afghanistan would become even more of a disaster than it already is, and even Pakistan would be under threat).
I fully support our troops, and I also wish that they could be withdrawn, but the evidence and history, shows that this would be a disaster. Iraq is not Vietnam. We cannot just let go, and things will sort themselves out. I just wish that someone in authority had some answers. Vietnam showed us that supporting a government that does not have the support of the people, is a road to failure, but pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will create an explosion of violence. It is a real dilemma. :thepain:
You want us to stay until they all get along!?:eek:
Not our problem.
They voted for that government.
Americans have got to quit obsessing with the whole "failure" thing with Iraq. We failed before we ever invaded & occupied a nation that was not a threat to us & did not want us there... the second BushCo. thought they could get away with it the failure was sealed. Now we need to control the damage done as best we can, every day we stay that damage gets worse.
You want us to stay until they all get along!?:eek:
Not our problem.
They voted for that government.
No, I don't want our troops to stay, but as I said, I can't see that withdrawing is going to make the situation better. Both the Iraqi Government, and the Afghan, are weak, but would you put someone like Saddam back into Iraq, and the Taliban back into Afghanistan - or maybe let Iran rule both, which is not an unforeseeable possibility, especially if we pull out?
It will force them to stop blaming their problems on the occupying force and to deal with each other on their own terms.
They are not weak, they have a scape-goat.
Who they put into power is not our problem.
As a libertarian I do not feel it is our job to be the world's babysitter.
They shoot our kids, say they don't want us there... fine. Plus, they are right, we have no right to be there. I am talking about Iraq... this thread is not about Afghanistan. That is more complex and I agreed with the invasion but am disgusted with the FUBAR it turned into.... but, OT.
Iraq is simple, really, we had no business doing it and no business being there now that we helped them vote their govt. in.
I say we pull out to desert bases and let them have at each other. A total genocide would occur. But let's at least wait for a Democratic President to be elected first. That way we can blame any fall out on a Democratically controlled congress and a Democratic President.
I say we pull out to desert bases and let them have at each other.
Total genocide will be inevitable if we stay. That was well understood and defined in the Iraq Study Group; which recommended that pullback.
We created the massacre. We cannot stop it. Either they must conduct a massive genocide in civil war or they must come to reality - which means blaming it on and throw out their 'big dics'. No way around this solution. A situation well predicted in both the Pentagon and State Department back in 2002 when Americans were instead foolishly listening to Rush Limbaugh logic.
Work one does today does not show up on a spread sheet for 4 or more years later. Genocide that was obvious to the educated in 2002 will appear on body counts today. Americans can only make things worse; not make things better. We broke it and we own it as only the educated were saying in 2002. Did you hear them or did you join the ranks of American 'big dics'? The resulting genocide is no accident. Our only option is to minimize it - and that means pulling back out of the cities - letting the Iraqis decide what they want - just like in Lebanon when Israel created the same mess by listening to their 'big dic'. Lessons of history repeat when ....
We broke it and we own it as only the educated were saying in 2002. Did you hear them or did you join the ranks of American 'big dics'?
I said the very thing in 02. And did I hear them, what the fuck does that mean? I
was on active duty in the Army then. And you? What the hell were you doing about it in 2002??
I am talking about Iraq... this thread is not about Afghanistan.
It is not that simple any more. You cannot isolate Afghanistan from the equation. Iran and Pakistan tie the two together. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq. I agree that in an ideal world, the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, but it is not that simple. I wish is was, believe me.
It is not that simple any more. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq. I agree that in an ideal world, the troops should be pulled out of Iraq, but it is not that simple. I wish is was, believe me.
And that my friend is a very true statment. In fact the most insightful one I have read on here. We are all from the armchair quarterback club. Hindsight is a guilt free position on most issues.
I can't find the quote about being careful about starting a fight, because you cannot chose when it ends.
So here's a word from old Nicky that I think fits our situation in Iraq:
"Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself."
It is not that simple any more. You cannot isolate Afghanistan from the equation. Iran and Pakistan tie the two together. The situation is so complicated now, that you cannot only consider Iraq.
Continuing the mistakes in Iraq rather than maintaining a status quo; rather than do what the informed have been saying (as paraphrased in the Iraq Study Group) means Afghanistan may be right behind Iraq. Taking the we fear all mentality; automatically labeling everyone in black and white; for example, automatically labeling Iran as an enemy; will only lead to more American deaths and further loss of American influence.
One should never forget who the wild card in that region is and who the greatest threat to American interests is: Pakistan.
Ironic that a closest American ally is also a greatest threat? Not just a liability - a threat. As bluesdave notes, the situation is so complicated now which is also why the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group demanded coordinated actions from most of the American government. But how many understood how complicated as to understand that Pakistan (not Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, or the K'stan nations) is the greatest threat - the big wild card.
As long as we continue this status quo, then the potential threat of, around, and in Pakistan only becomes larger. Status quo ("Mission Accomplished") is a guaranteed source of things worse. That was made quite clear from the Iraq Study Group.
One need only learn lessons of history. The Wise Men said a same thing in Vietnam. So we ignored that hard reality out of fear - as if might makes right. It only meant 30,000 massacred Americans, millions of massacred Vietnamese, and even created the killing fields in Cambodia. Welcome to what happened in 1968 when we did in Vietnam what we are now doing in Iraq - maintaining the status quo only because no one in American power was willing to accept hard facts.
tw, you are quite correct about fearing Pakistan, but I do not think you should dismiss Iran. You can also add Syria for that matter, though its influence is mainly in Lebanon and Palestine, and to a lesser extent, Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that one day we will have to get out (of Iraq). What worries me, is: 1, the method of our withdrawal, and 2, what sort of mess will be left behind. I know that we can take the stand of who cares, it's not our country, but we took it upon ourselves to invade both countries, so whether we agreed or disagreed with the original actions of our governments, we as people, have a moral obligation to the Iraqis and Afghanis. Iran has also put itself into the equation. It is not a silent, neutral observer.
We should have concentrated on Afghanistan, and Bin Laden in the first place, and left Iraq for another day.
tw, you are quite correct about fearing Pakistan, but I do not think you should dismiss Iran. You can also add Syria for that matter, though its influence is mainly in Lebanon and Palestine, and to a lesser extent, Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that one day we will have to get out (of Iraq). What worries me, is: 1, the method of our withdrawal, and 2, what sort of mess will be left behind.
If falling for myths and lies from George Jr, then Syria and Iran are major threats. They weren't until George Jr decided to make them enemies. For example, what American ally was providing intelligence to the US? Syria. So when did Syria become this big menace? When George Jr decided to terminate the relationship by hyping 'black and white', 'good and evil', 'god told me what to do' rhetoric.
Iran was a cooperative nation while slowly doing as Libya was to become a closer friend of America. This infuriated the Project for a New American Century whose viewpoints are based in political agendas rather than in reality. Iran could not have been more cooperative after 11 September and the Afghan invasion. Did you know that or did you instead only hear lies from the George Jr administration? Do you know why Iran was so cooperative? Reasons could not have been more obvious.
Well Syria and Iran are a problem only because of a mental midget (actually Cheney) who sees evil everywhere - cannot view the world in perspectives. The Iranian reform movement? All but killed by George Jr's declaration of war - the axis of evil speech. But again, if you did not recognized that on the minute he gave that speech, then you did not yet grasp the world.
Neither Syria nor Iran is a threat any greater than the K'stan nations. Turkey is also a threat on the same scale because of Turkey's attitude towards Kurdistan and because America's second or third closest ally in NATO has become so anti-American thanks to the mental midget and his 'big dics'. Let's not forget Israel who will invade a nation at the 'drop of a hat' using the same logic that justified "Mission Accomplished". Israel is also a threat as serious as Syria and Iran.
By far, the most dangerous situation is Pakistan. Far more dangerous than any other nation in the region and maybe the most dangerous in the entire world. But again, it demands that one first discount all those George Jr myth and lies. That is not easy in an America that, for example, remains completely ignorant of a massive American military buildup apparently to attack someone next month. Why does the world know of this buildup when Americans do not? Why are my sources about this other 'surge' only from foreign sources - not from American sources? It demonstrates how easily the Americans are also fooled by myths about Syria and Iran.
Last year at this time, many Americans also foolishly believed N Korea was a threat. Again lies and myths from George Jr's administration. Notice that suddenly N Korea is now getting what it always wanted. Did you know what they were asking for? A return to the same agreement that Jimmy Carter negotiated back in mid 1990s. Did you notice this administration that destroyed that agreement is now suddenly restoring it? Why? Because the only thing that changed - George Jr's people finally saw some reality rather than know using wacko extremist 'big dic' thinking. China or South Korea may have finally brought sanity back to George Jr's administration. It certainly was not Cheney. And it certainly was not the lightweight Condi Rice.
Fears of Syria and Iran are just as unfounded once we remove George Jr propaganda. Yes, both are unacceptable to American principles. But then so are most nations in Africa that America is so supportive of. Need I name Nigeria? Why are we also not threatening Sudan that is far worse? Well again, what they won't tell you. We do back room deals with Sudan for information. Therefore Sudan really does not massacre anyone of consequence. Did you see the Sudan leaders laughing at the opening ceremonies for the UN when George Jr gave his speech denouncing Sudan? Do you know why they were laughing? If not, it also explains why they have you foolishly believing the myths about Iran and Syria.
I suspect almost everyone here has no idea how serious Pakistan really is. But again, how many still believe anything from the George Jr administration that routinely downplays that threat. It goes to what you use as news sources. I guarantee that anyone who defined Fox News as a news source has zero idea about anything above.
There is no doubt in my mind that one day we will have to get out (of Iraq). What worries me, is: 1, the method of our withdrawal, and 2, what sort of mess will be left behind. I know that we can take the stand of who cares, it's not our country, but we took it upon ourselves to invade both countries, so whether we agreed or disagreed with the original actions of our governments, we as people, have a moral obligation to the Iraqis and Afghanis.
Deal with realities. The Iraqis must now make decisions. Only Iraqis can decide to expand the civil war or suddenly decide they need one another. Biggest reason that Sunnis and Shia are ethnic cleansing each other - we created the problem and our presence only exasperated it. From the Iraq Study Group:
34: The question of the future U.S. force presence must be on the table for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place. Its inclusion will increase the likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby increase the possibilities for success.
Even after the United States has moved all combat brigades out of Iraq, we would maintain a considerable military presence in the region
Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.”
That means assisting from a distance - American troops out of the city - and with the US as part of a large neutral nation presence. That means nation building - exactly what the Project for New American Century condemns and yet exactly what is well known as necessary where intelligent people reside.
That large American embassy demolished when we don't intend to occupy Iraq - make it a territory like Guam. Don't fool yourself. That embassy is that large because we intend to micromanage Iraq - just like Nam.
Iraq still needs American presence to protect its national integrity from invasion; ie from Turkey. But if Iraqis want civil war, then the massive more deaths are necessary. Any government imposed on the people either fails or is a dictatorship. If they have to fight in the streets like in Lebanon, then Americans must step back; let it happen, and acknowledge all that blood is on American hands. These conclusions cannot be changed by America. Time to avoid this was in 2002. A lesson from Israel in Lebanon. No way around what we have created and cannot change.
Iraq cannot be won. The question is how great will that loss be. By end of 2007, if the question is not decided, then America must leave - let them murder each other like American also lets it happen in Darfur, Chad, Somolia, and other places.
Meanwhile, every day we stay in Iraq is another day we are losing a justified war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs hundreds of thousands in country this year. Our backs are against the wall. The defeat that may occur in the next decade apparently is being decided this year. And because so many want to fix what cannot be fixed by Americans in Iraq, then Afghanistan may also go down as an American defeat.
We are in a desperate situation in Afghanistan for the same reasons why 1968 sealed the American defeat in Nam. Do you see the parallels between 1968 Nam and Afghanistan today? They are stunningly same.
tw, I don't believe what Bush and Cheney say. Cheney is barely short of a criminal, and Bush is, well, not the brightest penny in the bunch, but independent reports that I have heard, and seen through the BBC and various European documentary makers, have said that Iran and Syria are supporting insurgents in Iraq. Also, do not forget that the US backed Saddam in his war against Iran, and they have not forgotten that. I think the death toll in just the Iranian military was over 700,000. The relationship between Iran and the West has been strained for years. GWB and Cheney have made it worse.
I already agreed with you that Pakistan is a problem, but we can't take on another battle in the midst of the two existing ones. Apart from that I agree with most of what you say.
I already agreed with you that Pakistan is a problem, but we can't take on another battle in the midst of the two existing ones. Apart from that I agree with most of what you say.
There is no reason to believe any war with Iran is necessary. Cooperation with Iran's government has repeatedly demonstrated they do not want war and they do not want instability on their borders. The Iraq Study Group makes that same point - in direct contradiction to rhetoric about Iran trying to create instability. Just another reason why George Jr would not even read the ISG report. Again, eliminate the George Jr / Cheney rhetoric; and Iran is ripe for American friendship - a task that will take about 20 years.
For example, during "Mission Accomplished", Iran unilaterally told America that American warplanes crashing on Iranian soil could even be rescued by Americans; Iran would cooperate fully. Only friends make such offers. Why do such unilateral attempts to be cooperative not get reported? Iran is not the threat speculated. Those who promote this 'axis of evil' myth are the threat.
Are Iranians, et al supporting insurgents in Iraq? Yes, exactly like US supported the IRA in UK. Your post about Iranian and Syrian support for Iraqi insurgency is only possible if you also blame America for IRA attacks on the British. You cannot have it both ways. Either America was the enemy of UK, or insurgency support from Iran and Syria are from the same type of people in America.
If Iran and Syria are monolithic - and that is what Cheney must have you believe - then you see things in 'black and white'. Meanwhile, why do Iraqi insurgents have so much money to buy weapons from criminal elements? Where do you think all those $billions of American $100 bills went to? Where do you think multiple tractor trailers of American $100 from Saddam's Treasury went? And that is only a small part of insurgent financing.
Cheney et al must have you blame all of Iran which is total nonsense once we eliminate their rhetoric. No country is monolithic. Otherwise you must blame the United States for being, by far, the largest supporters of IRA terrorism in Britain. But then I am only reposting this same reality for how many years now?
Again my point. The Iranian government is responsible for attacks on Americans due to myths by same people who claimed Saddam had WMDs. Once we limit this discussion to reality, an Iranian insurgency in Iraq completely disappears. The insurgency is almost all Iraqis - hundreds or thousands of different groups. Especially those created by Bremer when we fired the police, military, teachers, government workers, telephone people, water department employees, etc. Iran had nothing to do with that. Americans created it.
Iranian supported insurgency in Iraq is as real as George Jr administration honesty. Al Qaeda in Iraq? At what point do we ignore that myth from George Jr? That Al Qaeda is also believed by those who have respect for Cheney. Al Qaeda in Iraq is mostly a George Jr lie. This Iranian supported insurgency is a myth from the same liars. Iranian supported insurgency is completely contrary to what the Iran nation wants and needs. But it sure is profitable for mafia types.
So ask yourself where all those American provided $100 bills - tons of pallets of $100 bill - where do you think they went? Remember Vietnam: who was large supplier of the Viet Cong? Americans. Nixon also forgot to mention that part to promote lies.
Iran is far from a threat, but can be as long as we keep hyping George Jr lies. What makes Iran any danger? That 2002 'axis of evil' speech from George Jr.
There is no reason to believe any war with Iran is necessary. Cooperation with Iran's government has repeatedly demonstrated they do not want war and they do not want instability on their borders.
I do not disagree with the principle of co-operation, but with Iran (as with Pakistan and Syria), it is a dangerous path.
Iranian supported insurgency in Iraq is as real as George Jr administration honesty. Al Qaeda in Iraq? At what point do we ignore that myth from George Jr? That Al Qaeda is also believed by those who have respect for Cheney. Al Qaeda in Iraq is mostly a George Jr lie. This Iranian supported insurgency is a myth from the same liars. Iranian supported insurgency is completely contrary to what the Iran nation wants and needs. But it sure is profitable for mafia types.
Nevertheless, Iran
is supporting Shiite insurgents in Iraq. I am not supporting GWB, but the facts are undeniable. Coincidently tonight on one of our news broadcasts, they covered a UN summit which is discussing/debating the problems in Iraq, and both Iran and Syria are mentioned frequently. Do you say that the UN is wrong? The same group that has often criticised US policy, and has been pushing for a peaceful solution for years.
So ask yourself where all those American provided $100 bills - tons of pallets of $100 bill - where do you think they went? Remember Vietnam: who was large supplier of the Viet Cong? Americans.
I could teach you about Vietnam, tw. I studied Vietnamese history even while we were still dropping bombs on them. Ho Chi Minh was a long time
supporter of the US, and was shocked that the US would not support his dream of driving out the European imperialists (the French), because his forces had rescued hundreds of American troops during WW2. He thought that the US was a friend, not realising that his communist leanings would mark him as an enemy to the extreme right wing elements of the US government. He was desperate for help, and communist China and the USSR (but mainly China), were the only countries willing to help.
BTW, I escaped being conscripted and sent to Vietnam by the skin of my teeth, so lecturing me on Vietnam will get you nowhere.
Iran is far from a threat, but can be as long as we keep hyping George Jr lies. What makes Iran any danger? That 2002 'axis of evil' speech from George Jr.
Nup. Whether it was caused by ideological differences, or direct action, Iran hates America, and Americans to the bone. Their nuclear programme at this time is a joke (North Korea even more so), but Iran does supply conventional weapons and money to insurgents in Iraq and Palestine.
I wonder if they recorded the serial numbers on that 363 tons of $100 bills? I would be interesting to see where they end up. :confused:
Is there a where's Ben dot com? :D
Nevertheless, Iran is supporting Shiite insurgents in Iraq. I am not supporting GWB, but the facts are undeniable. ...
Nup. Whether it was caused by ideological differences, or direct action, Iran hates America, and Americans to the bone. Their nuclear programme at this time is a joke (North Korea even more so), but Iran does supply conventional weapons and money to insurgents in Iraq and Palestine.
Then these facts are also undeniable. The US was intentionally supporting the IRA in Britain. You cannot have it both ways. The US support for the IRA was exactly same as Iran's support is for Iraqi insurgents. Exactly. What you call Iran support for insurgents is exactly the same support that the US provided the IRA to bomb British citizens.
Where is this reality denied? Where people who hate George Jr also believe his lies.
Your post only makes sense if you assume American and Iranian criminal elements are also called the American and Iranian governments. Again, you have painted all Americans and all Iranians with a common brush. Even this mythical hate of America by all Iranians - only possible when thinking monolithically. You have now said America's government supported the IRA and that Iran's government supports all Iraqi insurgents. That is your monolithic conclusion.
Nothing is monolithic. Or do you claim the Iranian government and US government both supported terrorism? Why is the US mafia a same entity as the United States government? Clearly, US could not supply the IRA without American government cooperation. Therefore the US government financed and armed the IRA. This is exactly what you have posted about Iran.
Iran is only a great threat where George Jr rhetoric is promoted. All Americans who hate George Jr can still fall for his lies. After all, we did not impeach George Jr for one good reason. He is such as good liar that even his enemies believe what he says. How is Iranian hatred of America - expressed just like it was in Vietnam - proof that all Iranians hate Americans? Notice how the Vietnamese so hated Americans as to not get enough of Clinton. Since those Vietnamese proclaimed the same hate of America, then they would swarm to meet Americans?
Iran hates America and Americans to the bone. Only the brainwashed could say that. George Jr is such as good spinner of propaganda that he even got you to believe it - in direct contradiction to what international reporters find in the streets of Tehran. Eliminate that one lie and Iran is no big threat. Iran is a little threat. Pakistan is reams more a threat once we eliminate the hate – promoted by George Jr and Limbaugh lies – that Iranians hate Americans to the bone. Where is the 'hate' of American greater? In Pakistan.
Where is the hatred of America among the intelligent? Even among America's closest allies, the majority hate one thing American - the George Jr administration. They can also hate Americans for reelecting the scumbag. Eliminate George Jr and his Limbaugh liars - then we only have Pakistan to worry about - the big threat that makes Iran microscopic by comparision.
I wonder if they recorded the serial numbers on that 363 tons of $100 bills? I would be interesting to see where they end up.
Even before "Mission Accomplished" began, George Jr had spread so many $100 bills in northern Iraq that a cup of coffee sold for $100. Yes, that is how much money America has spread throughout Iraq with no accounting.
Only later did Americans distribute money by pallets - not by backpacks. But then Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
It wouldn't be hard to believe that Iran hates America. Look at the history of America's intervention with Iran's politics. I would be pissed at the US if I were them too.
Of course Iran hates America..... and so do the majority of Middle east states.
Why?
Israel.
The Middle East problem will not be solved until the US re-evauates its policy via-a-vis Israel.
The main reason I was talking about was
Operation Ajax and the reinstatement of the Shah. This directly led to the Islamic revolution and the kidnapping of the US embassy. Then the US supports Saddam in the Iraqi-Iranian war. Then includes them in the "Axis Of Evil" and denies and help from them. And now we are misquoting their leaders and accusing Iran of terrorism.
Even before "Mission Accomplished" began, George Jr had spread so many $100 bills in northern Iraq that a cup of coffee sold for $100. Yes, that is how much money America has spread throughout Iraq with no accounting.
Only later did Americans distribute money by pallets - not by backpacks. But then Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
Wasn't the 363 tons of cash, Iraq's money that was being held under the pre-war UN sanctions? :confused:
Wasn't the 363 tons of cash, Iraq's money that was being held under the pre-war UN sanctions? :confused:
So we raided their checking account, then threw $100 bills from the rooftop - and call that "returning their money"?
Don't be silly, the rooftops aren't safe. Just drop it from choppers........ like turkeys. ;)
Of course Iran hates America..... and so do the majority of Middle east states.
Why?
For those who can’t/won't read the various sources, well, 'hate of America' appears stronger in Islamic countries that are supposed to be American friends. Iranian ‘dislike of America’ is same or slightly less. ‘America dislike’ is strongest in Pakistan – supposedly a strongest American ally.
From the Harvard International Review comes numbers and supporting facts (paragraphs beginning with boldface letter is most relevant):
It's the Policy, Stupid
Political Islam and US Foreign Policy
Is the primary cause of radicalism and anti-Westernism, especially anti-Americanism, extremist theology or simply the policies of many Muslim and Western governments?
A new Gallup World Study overwhelmingly suggests the latter. The poll, whose results are released for the first time in this article, now enables us to get beyond conflicting analyses of experts and selective voices from the "Arab street." It lets us listen to one billion Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. And they tell us that US policies, not values, are behind the ire of the Arab/Muslim world. ...
History demonstrates that political Islam is both extremist and mainstream. ...
Is there a blind hatred of the United States? The question "Why do they hate us?" raised in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 looms large following continued terrorist attacks and the dramatic growth of anti-Americanism. A common answer provided by some politicians and experts has been, "They hate our way of life, our freedom, democracy, and success." Considering the broad based anti-Americanism, not only among extremists but also among a significant mainstream majority in the Muslim world (and indeed in many other parts of the world), this answer is not satisfactory. Although the Muslim world expresses many common grievances, do extremists and moderates differ in attitudes about the West?
Focusing on the attitudes of those with radical views and comparing them with the moderate majority results in surprising findings. When asked what they admired most about the West, both extremists and moderates had the identical top three spontaneous responses: (1) technology; (2) the West's value system, hard work, self-responsibility, rule of law, and cooperation; and (3) its fair political systems, democracy, respect for human rights, freedom of speech, and gender equality. A significantly higher percent of potential extremists than moderates (50 percent versus 35 percent) believe that "moving towards greater governmental democracy" will foster progress in the Arab/Muslim world. Potential extremists believe even more strongly than moderates (58 percent versus 45 percent) that Arab/Muslim nations are eager to have better relations with the West. Finally, no significant difference exists between the percentage of potential extremists and moderates who said "better relations with the West concerns me a lot."
While many believe anti-Americanism is tied to a basic hatred of the West and deep West-East religious and cultural differences, the data above contradicts these views. In addition, Muslim assessments of individual Western countries demonstrate that Muslim views do not paint all Western countries with the same brush. Unfavorable opinions of the United States or the United Kingdom do not preclude favorable attitudes towards other Western countries like France or Germany. Data shows that while moderates have very unfavorable opinions of the United States (42 percent) and Great Britain (34 percent), unfavorable opinions of France (15 percent) and Germany (13 percent) were far less and in fact comparable to the percent of Muslims who viewed Pakistan or Turkey unfavorably (both at 12 percent).
What creates unfavorable attitudes towards the United States? Belief that the United States is serious about democracy in Muslim countries has long been undermined by what is perceived as the United States' "double standard" in promoting democracy. Key factors of this perception include a long track record of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Arab and Muslim world while not promoting democracy there as it did elsewhere after the fall of the Soviet Union. Then, when weapons of mass destruction were not to be found in Iraq, the Bush administration boldly declared that the US-led invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein were intended to bring democracy to Iraq as part of a broader policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. ...
While the spread of democracy has been the stated goal of the United States, majorities in every nation surveyed by Gallup do not believe that the United States was serious about the establishment of democratic systems in the region. For example, only 24 percent in Egypt and Jordan and only 16 percent in Turkey agreed that the United States was serious about establishing democratic systems. ...
Apparent is a trend where Islamic people don't believe Americans. Can anyone blame them? United States has lied because George Jr and his administration even lied about international kidnapping and torture, etc.
Muslim perceptions of the US role and response to the Israeli wars in Gaza and Lebanon must also be seen within the broad context of the Arab and Muslim world. From North Africa to Southeast Asia, the Gallup World Poll indicates that majorities in every predominantly Muslim country surveyed associate "ruthless" with the United States (68 percent in Turkey, 85 percent in Morocco). Muslim publics are also much less likely to say the US is "trustworthy" when compared to other Western nations. For example, only 4 percent of Egyptians consider the US "trustworthy," while 22 percent associate this description with France and Japan, and 18 percent with Germany. Outside of Iraq, majorities also agreed that the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good (ranging from 52 percent in Iran to 91 percent in Egypt).
In reviewing this poll and others, a common thread appears. ‘America unfavorable’ numbers are higher in countries with freer press and that are considered American friends such as Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan. Some of the most unfavorable numbers are found in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Unfavorable numbers trend less anti-American in Iran and Morocco. As noted farther below, Iran is one of the few countries where 'America unfavorable' ratings softened - they less hate America.
America's unconditional support of Israel cast it in the eyes of many as a partner, not simply in military action against HAMAS or Hizbollah militants, but in a war against the democratically elected Palestinian government in Gaza and the government of Lebanon, a long-time US ally. The primary victims in Gaza and Lebanon were hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not terrorists. In Lebanon, more than 500 were killed, 2,000 wounded, and 800,000 displaced. Israeli’s military destroyed the civilian infrastructures of both Gaza and Lebanon. International organizations like the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have criticized Israel for violating international law.
So how unfavorable is Islamic opinion of the US. Getting worse. Numbers from Gallup Polls in 2001/2 and again in 2005/6: this time from The Economist of 10 Mar 2007:
What the data show is not reassuring to Americans: in most places, the percentage holding "unfavourable views" of the United States has risen - from 64% to 79% in Saudi Arabia, 33% to 62% in Turkey, 41% to 49% in Morocco. (Exceptions do exist: in Iran the figure fell from 63% to 52%)
Why do Americans think Islam has so poor opinions of American? From a Gallup poll of Mar 2002:
Q. Do you think that the unfavorable views Muslims have of the U.S. are based mostly on:
A. What the U.S. has done (or are): 11%
B. Misinformation provided by their media and government about U.S.: 78%
In later polls, that 'misinformed belief' almost disappears. Curious, they are not so misinformed after all? That is what American opinions now say. Why increasing unfavorable American ratings all over the Islamic world? And are Americans finally learning the meaning of, "We have met the enemy and he is us"? [deja vue Nam].
Meanwhile American unfavorable opinion of Islam has increased from 39% after 11 September to 46% in a Mar 2006 Washington Post/ABC News poll.
A trend from the numbers. Iran is not the ‘American hater’ as some Americans so strongly believe. From polls, that ‘strongly unfavorable’ rating is higher in Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia - supposedly American's closest friends. Sometimes those ‘unfavorable to favorable’ numbers are two to one and four to one – landslide opinions. Government ‘support of America’ is not shared by their people. ‘American unfavorable’ ratings tend to be equal or slightly higher among America's closest allies as compared to Iran.
Meanwhile, what religion has a higher unfavorable rating in America? Scientology is massively ‘less popular’ to Americans as compared to any other religion; including Islam. Americans only give Scientology (in one poll) an 8% approval rating. Americans are 3 times more favorable among Islamic Pakistanis and Iranians than Scientology is among Americans.
Geez...and was me thinking I hate America the most and all the while there's others?
btw that was a joke.
To benchmark yourself - do you appreciate their perspective? If so, then you know about this so very popular movie in Turkey:
Valley of the Wolves Iraq
Actual news was reported internationally; but I heard nothing about it in mainstream America where such reports back then would have been regarded with anti-American contempt. Simply a benchmark for measuring your "perspectives".
{Postscript - 'you' is not Aliantha. "You" is the lurker.}
As I said, I was joking. I don't hate America. I don't hate any particular nation. Every nation on this earth is guilty of human rights attrocities and has members of the military who have been accused of if not convicted of war crimes. If I hated America for these things, I'd have to hate everyone in the world.
From what I've seen the average Iranian does not dislike America.
A trend from the numbers. Iran is not the ‘American hater’ as some Americans so strongly believe. From polls, that ‘strongly unfavorable’ rating is higher in Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia - supposedly American's closest friends. Sometimes those ‘unfavorable to favorable’ numbers are two to one and four to one – landslide opinions. Government ‘support of America’ is not shared by their people. ‘American unfavorable’ ratings tend to be equal or slightly higher among America's closest allies as compared to Iran.
tw, as usual you are fixated on one subject (and I *do not* mean this is a nasty way). What difference do numbers in opinion polls really make? For a start, opinion polls, wherever they are conducted, are unreliable. People will answer one way on a given day, and the reverse on another. Do you really think that Giuliani really has a chance of being the Republican candidate in 2008? He is topping the polls at the moment, but who thinks he will actually get up, let alone win the Presidency? I like the guy, but he has no hope. The polls you cite are similar. The Saudi people hate their government (close to a dictatorship), so they will hate anyone who they see as assisting that government to stay in power (eg. the US). Jordan has a large population of Palestinians. That explains
their opinions.
As I mentioned earlier, over 700,000 Iranians died in the US supported Iraq/Iran war. The Iranian people have long memories.
Yes, the average Pakistani "on the street" is going to say he/she hates America, but they have been brainwashed. The big worry for the West is if Musharraf is deposed or assassinated, and Shiite extremists take control, terrorism will spread through the Middle East and the West, like a wild fire. If the US can protect Musharraf for a long enough period, then maybe, just maybe, the bulk of the Pakistani people will realise that the US and the West are not the ogres they think we are. Musharraf is walking a thin line between power (and life), and death. What would you have the US do - invade Pakistan and have all the doubters suddenly convinced that indeed the US *is* evil? I hope not.
I vote Pakistan for the most dangerous, next to us. Nukes, missiles, wackos that could seize power in the immediate future. Hate India and Israel, both of which are getting a considerable influx of US help. My guess they subscribe to, My enemy's friend is my enemy.
I vote Pakistan for the most dangerous, next to us. Nukes, missiles, wackos that could seize power in the immediate future. Hate India and Israel, both of which are getting a considerable influx of US help. My guess they subscribe to, My enemy's friend is my enemy.
I think you are right on Bruce, if Musharraf is kicked out. At the moment he is exercising at least some degree of control over the country (not much, I know, but as I said before, the situation in Pakistan could be even worse than it is).
There is some disagreement, by the way, on exactly how good Pakistan's nuclear weapons really are, but you are right, Israel will cop it if the "crazies" take control of Pakistan.
tw, as usual you are fixated on one subject (and I *do not* mean this is a nasty way). What difference do numbers in opinion polls really make? For a start, opinion polls, wherever they are conducted, are unreliable. People will answer one way on a given day, and the reverse on another. Do you really think that Giuliani really has a chance of being the Republican candidate in 2008? He is topping the polls at the moment, but who thinks he will actually get up, let alone win the Presidency?
...
As I mentioned earlier, over 700,000 Iranians died in the US supported Iraq/Iran war. The Iranian people have long memories.
Yes, the average Pakistani "on the street" is going to say he/she hates America, but they have been brainwashed.
If the average Pakistani is brainwashed, then he is brainwashed with diatribes from his dictatorship government. Why then is Pakistani opinion contrary to what his government says?
Brainwashed or not is completely irrelevant. Relevant: that is their opinion. An opinion repeatedly demonstrated in poll after poll from many sources. An attitude so massively unfavorable of America that approval numbers repeated are in an extremely one-sided 25% region. A massive unfavorable rating common to nations that are not secular.
How can one declare so many polls from so many different sources as all wrong? The trend is obvious. Contrary to what their government says, secular nations tend to have more favorable American numbers; fundamental religious extremists tend to be unfavorable.
Same applies to poll numbers from Iranians and interviews by international reporters. Iranians are a more secular people. Polls put Iranians with numbers equal to or more favorable than so many American ally nations. As Jay notes:
Of course Iran hates America..... and so do the majority of Middle east states
Do Iranians hate Americans because of Saddam's attack on Iran? Of course not. They most certainly remember how America supported the hated Shah again and again. The Shah even did torture. But trivial support given to Saddam and Iraq does not inspire hate of America. America's support of the hated Shah is something that America should apologize for - part of the process of political exchanges that would restore Iranian-American relationships.
Of so many reasons why Pakistan is such a threat - Pakistanis (unlike Iranians) are fundamentalist religious. Even during America's justified attack on Afghanistan or during "Mission Accomplished", Iran was so cooperative with Americans. Pakistan had to be dragged into cooperation. Pakistani military is even suspected of spying for bin Laden. Why then does Iran nearly 100% hate Americans? Hate is only found in George Jr / Rush Limbaugh / neo-con and wacko extremist propaganda. Facts and supporting numbers just don't support your contention that Iranians so hate Americans. Did Iranians provide the Taliban with intelligence? Absolutely not.
Have I digressed about 'fancy trim work'? No. I go right for at structure - fundamental and underlying facts. To understand why Americans see Iranian threats where none exist, well, in your own example, America made enemies of a closest American friend - Vietnam - for exact same reasons. Why do I concentrate on this 'so essential' point? Learn the lessons of history or be condemned to repeat the deaths of millions. Same 'girders' explain why America wasted so many in Vietnam AND why same could happen in Iran. Essential to avoiding war is to defang wacko extremists who want to fix the world by "Pearl Harboring" Iran. They are the source of Iranian hate.
Why is Iran - that was working towards improved relations with America despite opposition from fundamentalist clerics - why is Iran suddenly so much an enemy? Not because of Iranian hatred. Nothing was as destructive as when George Jr announced his intent to "Pearl Harbor" Iran in Jan 2002. Even moderate Khatami whose supporter were women and young Iranians and his predecessor Rafsanjani who had been working for better US relations - both had to concede to the clerics due to George Jr. If George Jr had not made his 'all but declaration of war' speech, Iranian relations could have improved as the majority of Iranians once wanted. Even Rafsanjani had to backtrack; join clerics in anti-American rhetoric.
Anyone who views Iran as monolithic could never appreciate a power struggle between Iranian presidents (who so wanted to improve their American relations) and clerics (who like so many Pakistanis, instead, distrust Americans). That is what George Jr and Rush Limbaugh thrive on - public naivety. Iran could have been somewhere behind Libya in restoration of American relations. They could even forgive Americans for imposing the Shah on them. Iranians are not a country of religious extremists like Pakistan. Iran is a secular nation that has often made gestures to improve their American relationships only to be rebuffed by our wacko extremist government.
Why do I not let this go? Because neo-con myth purveyors could create war on another potential friend. This myth that Iranians are a nation of maybe 40 million suicide bombers is absolute nonsense. To not see through those neo-co myths would be deja vue Vietnam - and millions more dead. Do we instead relive lesson of history?
Fundamental to avoiding such conflicts is to ignore 'fancy trim work'; instead go after fundamental facts ruthlessly and incessently. Iranian attitude is essential - the 'girders' - to understanding that region. To not do so - to not see why 'Iranian hate' myths are promoted - is why wars are created. Had America been intelligent and not declared a "Pearl Harbor" intent for wacko neo-con political reasons, then Iran would not be this threat that some 'feel'. Deja vue Vietnam when McCarthyism did then what 'Project for a New American Century' does today.
Where are you people getting that Iranians hate the US?
Everything that I have seen and read states that the average Iranian likes the US. It is only the hard-liners and a small minority that dislikes the West. They happen to be in control of the government, but that is not representative of the average Iranian, not by a long-shot.
My roommate was watching 'Good Morning America' and Diane Stoyer or whatever her name is went to Iran and made a huge idiot out of herself. There were anti-US and anti-Bush protests and she would go up to them and pretend to be really confused as they treated her with respect. "They are shouting 'Die America' and then they help me with my head covering, I don't get". Stupid...
Where are you people getting that Iranians hate the US?
Everything that I have seen and read states that the average Iranian likes the US. It is only the hard-liners and a small minority that dislikes the West. They happen to be in control of the government, but that is not representative of the average Iranian, not by a long-shot.
What are you basing this on? Polls? As I pointed out to tw, Giuliani is currently leading the polls on who will win the Republican ticket, but who really believes that he will? My guess is that he will not even make the convention next year, let alone be the GOP candidate. Most people in third-world countries (such as Iran and Pakistan), would die to live in the West (the USA is no. 1 choice). If they are asked if they hate the US, they are going to answer no. What idiot would risk jeopardising their chances of emigrating from their third-world homeland to the US, by answering yes? The affirmative answer is only given by the hard-liners.
I do *not* want these countries to hate the USA or the West. I *want* them to see us as friends, but I also realise that if I had had family killed in a bloody war, supported in part by the West, I would have some feelings about this. Also, the regular mosque attendees are being brainwashed by religious fanatics, that the West, headed by the US, is evil. I know that the majority of the congregation will not absorb this nonsense, but some will, and do - otherwise we would not have terrorists, and suicide bombers.
I do not want war. I love peace. I love Australia, and I even love the USA. Next to my home, and a great fishing/holiday location up the coast from where I live, I love New York and most things American.
If the average Pakistani is brainwashed, then he is brainwashed with diatribes from his dictatorship government. Why then is Pakistani opinion contrary to what his government says?
~ snip I highly doubt the poll takers go anywhere near the western provinces, controlled by the taliban, where westerners are forbidden and government representatives walk on eggs.
Or in the poppy fields.
Polls must be taken with a grain of salt until the actual methodology, both theory and actually used, is known. :2cents:
I have read about this in the paper, seen reporters that have gone into the nation, all parts and read articles on it.
It is common knowledge.
Where are you getting your information that we are commonly hated among Iranians?
This is the first I have heard it.
Polls are for plebs & Iranians don't trust their government.
Uh.... why don't we ask the Cellar Dwellar who actually traveled to north western Pakistan and met the people there, what they think of Americans?
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=8198
"...it's a fascinating place to visit and they treat white Americans like no less than rock stars."
~ snip I highly doubt the poll takers go anywhere near the western provinces, controlled by the taliban, where westerners are forbidden and government representatives walk on eggs. ...
Polls must be taken with a grain of salt until the actual methodology, both theory and actually used, is known.
If polls did include those regions where even the Pakistani army does not tread, then 'American unfavorable' numbers (some of the highest in the world) would be even higher.
International reporters are not restricted in Iran as in Pakistan. Those numbers clearly demonstrate that Iranians are not as 'American unfavorable' as in Pakistan.
Meanwhile, bluesdave, where are your facts that say Iranians nearly 100% hate Americans? Disparage the only facts we have; and that is proof that all Iranians viciously hate Americans? Where are reports after studies? Reports and studies repeatedly say otherwise. Repeatedly from different sources say same thing. One can disparage all polls. But all polls by professionals means far more than speculation being used to deny them.
Also demonstrated by those polls - and that is in agreement with international news reports - is the massive increase in 'Americans unfavorable' numbers over the past ten years. But then if polls are so routinely wrong, then clearly the world is not overwhelmingly 'American unfavorable'. Which is it? Polls always lie - or polls properly reflect what had happened to world opinion of America?
Clearly America has never been more popular because all polls say otherwise? Or instead we look at numbers from Iran where the rhetoric and public opinion are not monolithic. bluesdave would have us believe that all Iranian is viciously anti-American. That is only found in George Jr myths so often promoted by Limbaugh and his peers - using reasoning that assume a monolithic Iran.
Uh.... why don't we ask the Cellar Dwellar who actually traveled to north western Pakistan and met the people there, what they think of Americans?
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=8198
One man, spent one week in one village. Hmm, yes that is definitive proof. I wonder what his experience would have been like if he had travelled to South West, and Southern Pakistan?
tw, I'm sick of you selectively quoting me, and ignoring other comments I have made. There is no point in arguing with you. I am finished here.
If polls did include those regions where even the Pakistani army does not tread, then 'American unfavorable' numbers (some of the highest in the world) would be even higher.
International reporters are not restricted in Iran as in Pakistan. Those numbers clearly demonstrate that Iranians are not as 'American unfavorable' as in Pakistan.
Meanwhile, bluesdave, where are your facts that say Iranians nearly 100% hate Americans? Disparage the only facts we have; and that is proof that all Iranians viciously hate Americans? Where are reports after studies? Reports and studies repeatedly say otherwise. Repeatedly from different sources say same thing. One can disparage all polls. But all polls by professionals means far more than speculation being used to deny them.
Also demonstrated by those polls - and that is in agreement with international news reports - is the massive increase in 'Americans unfavorable' numbers over the past ten years. But then if polls are so routinely wrong, then clearly the world is not overwhelmingly 'American unfavorable'. Which is it? Polls always lie - or polls properly reflect what had happened to world opinion of America?
Clearly America has never been more popular because all polls say otherwise? Or instead we look at numbers from Iran where the rhetoric and public opinion are not monolithic. bluesdave would have us believe that all Iranian is viciously anti-American. That is only found in George Jr myths so often promoted by Limbaugh and his peers - using reasoning that assume a monolithic Iran.
Damm you all are some cherry picking mofo's. Pick out the little bits of info from some obscure source and you think you have a lock on your position, everyone else is wrong and you are right.
Uh.... why don't we ask the Cellar Dwellar who actually traveled to north western Pakistan and met the people there, what they think of Americans?
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=8198
"...it's a fascinating place to visit and they treat white Americans like no less than rock stars."
I have yet to post anything about Pakistan. Where did
that come from? :bonk: