What Iraqis Really Think
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19153,filter./news_detail.asp
Zogby and AEI conduct as scientific a poll of Iraqis as they can manage. And the news is pretty good:
-- Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32 percent say things will become much better.
-- Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq.
-- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S.
-- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33 percent want an Islamic government; a solid 60 percent say no.
-- We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74 percent to 18 percent that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.
Awesome find UT, thanks. I was just thinking last night how it would be great if someone could conduct a scientific poll of such issues in Iraq, although it would be very difficult. I had no idea one was actually underway.
I'd mentioned before how my experiences with the Iraqi population were at great contrast to what seems to be portrayed in the media -- a country full of Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam loyalists who want us to leave as soon as possible. The media love to play up our problems in the Sunni Triangle, and seem to ignore the leanings of the rest of the country.
I also find it very interesting that this poll came out four days ago, yet I can't remember it being mentioned by any of the major U.S. media outlets.
Interesting, though I'm skeptical, given that:
--It's the AEI (though they are working with Zogby)
--It's just another poll
--They didn't include Iraq's largest city
--UT left this one out: Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50 percent to 36 percent they chose hurt over help.
Perhaps they could do a poll every month or so to see how the attitudes shift. And since we're going to be hanging out with the Iraqis for a while, it makes sense. It could become a "job approval" rating of sorts.
As a news hound, I can vouch. The only way to stay truly informed is through blogs. This link came via the essayist
USS Clueless. His current entry is chock full of food for thought.
And then there's Comedy Central's "Tough Crowd", where Christopher Hitchens was a guest last week and described how well things are going, especially with the Kurds.
Also very illuminating is this
BBC web chat with "Baghdad blogger" Salam Pax. The guy is not a good enough writer to give us a sense of how things are going, but when people ask him pointed questions, the answers are much better than one might imagine.
I find it interesting that 40% said democracy wouldn't work but the US govermental model was "the most popular by far." I suppose that makes sense with five choices though.
Originally posted by Undertoad
The only way to stay truly informed is through blogs.
OK, so if I want to toss out my lifetime reliance on the Traditional Media(tm), what stuff ought I to be reading?
Oh man, everybody's got their own set of favorites. You just have to find the ones that are appealing to you.
Almost all of them point to other sites to check out. That
USS Clueless appeals to me because the guy is an engineer, and he approaches a lot of things from an engineering standpoint.
For sheer volume it's
Instapundit.
The best writer by far is
Lileks, once a day M-F.
Vodkapundit has an appealing voice and is generally sensible.
Winds of Change takes on an awful lot with multiple writers.
But everyone will find their own that is appealing.
the first such poll conducted was organised by the Spectator (established, heavyweight political commentary magazine in UK) in partnership with Channel 4 (UK network tv station) and conducted by YouGov (respected internet pollsters). they questioned 800 people at 20 different locations in Baghdad, last June. a selection of the questions/results follow:
Q. Do you think that the US & British Govt war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?
Right 50%
Wrong 27%
Not stated 23%
Q. What is your view toward the US & British forces currently stationed in Iraq?
Friendly 26%
Hostile 18%
Neither friendly nor hostile 50%
Not stated 6%
Q. Would you prefer to see the US & Britain stay in Iraq or pull out?
Should stay a few years 31%
Should stay about a year 25%
Should stay a while, but leave within 12 months 20%
Should leave Iraq immediately 13%
Not stated 11%
Is Iraq a more dangerous or safer place for you to live since the US & Britain invaded?
Much more dangerous 54%
A little more dangerous 21%
No real change 10%
A little safer 11%
Much safer 3%
Not stated 1%
(There were more questions, but I'm tired of typing them.)
A mixed bag, then, but I'd say largely encouraging.
tasty tidbit here - wonder if they've done a poll like this more recently
What else would you expect from a US backed survey?
When you get the same results from an Iranian backed survey, you might have something to crow about.
Is this because the Iranian survey would only talk to Shia Clergy, sympathetic with Iran?
Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement BeeVee, all American's taking a survey in Iraq can't be trusted?
I wonder if the Iranian government would accept an independent survey company like Zogby to do a survey? I don't trust that they would.
The only way to really know though, is to travel to Iraq and tool around with a pad and pencil. Talk to some Iraqi's. Include Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Arabs, non Arabs, Christian, Turkoman, Kurds. Travel to each province and see the population grouping. Get a real good feel for what the Iraqi's as a whole are looking for.
What else would you expect from a US backed survey?
Show us the Canadian one. Oh, thats right Canada is too busy ridin on America's coattails to actually do a survey of their own. Go do your own effin survey if you don't like it.
What else would you expect from a US backed survey?
Did you mean to say a UK-backed survey.
When you get the same results from an Iranian backed survey, you might have something to crow about.
Did you mean to say an Iraqi-backed survey.
--UT left this one out: Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S.
No surprise; The anxiety or the "leaving it out", which makes me sceptical (but not in
total disbelief) of the whole presentation.
When you get the same results from an Iranian backed survey, you might have something to crow about.
Ah! :thumb:
When you get the same results from an Iranian (Iraqi?) backed survey, you might have something to crow about.
Ah! :thumb:
Show us the Canadian one. Oh, thats right Canada is too busy ridin on America's coattails to actually do a survey of their own. Go do your own effin survey if you don't like it.
The rest of the world is either
"with you" [SIZE="4"]or [/SIZE]"against you"k eh? Truth has very little to do with it, is that it?
The rest of the world is either "with you" [SIZE="4"]or [/SIZE]"against you"k eh? Truth has very little to do with it, is that it?
Nope not at all. You seem so quick to criticize America , yet offer NOTHING else as a reference.
Cite some other ... anything... offer something to refute what was posted.
You seem so quick to criticize America .....
"Quick" ? How long is it now that the Americans are in Iraq? You must have just woken up to the news this morning, if you think that my opinion is "quick".
History, my friend, is an on-going thing and it doesn't begin with the swearing in of a new president. He doesn't even create history - he merely makes his own additions. He may try to rewrite it, but there's always someone who remembers the truth.
Turn off the Fox News and put down Newsweek and Time. Take a look around you instead.
You all do realize this poll is from 2003 right? I was reviving this to see if there was any new or compelling info available - instead it looks like the same ole shit. nevermind.
Oh and aretha, I don't watch Fox nor subscribe or read either of those magrags. I think I see plenty. My view just isn't skewed in the same direction a yours.
For latest data, try the Iraq Index from the Brookings Institute. It is updated monthly. It also clearly states when the various data was collected.
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
The Brookings Institute is one of the most respected political think tanks. And no, its not far right; the media usually calls it liberal, although since it provides data that 'supports' Bush, some have accused it of going conservative. It is currently headed by Strobe Talbott, a former Clinton administration appointee.
Oh and aretha, I don't watch Fox nor subscribe or read either of those magrags. I think I see plenty. My view just isn't [SIZE="4"]skewed[/SIZE] in the same [SIZE="4"]direction[/SIZE] a yours.
I see that you missed your first chance to comment on this short list I submitted earlier on American democratic principles. Care to comment now? Or has your
"skewed direction" lost its' way without a road map?
..... here are a few "off the top of my head" examples .....
1). The invasion of Irak against the wishes of the U.N. - ignoring the democratic "majority" vote.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
3). Completely un-democratic practice of denying Americans citizens to visit certain countries, punishable by imprisonment - democratic freedom of movement/travel
4). The sanctioning of torture "under certain circumstances" - democratic "whatever that might be called in English"
5). Refusal to comply with international efforts of ecological concerns - democratic "majority vote"
These examples deal with the "now" - the "today". There are tons of additional examples to site within the last few years which still effect the situation today but were implemented during the previous decades.
1) When the UN has the power to stand on its own to the point that they can dictate and enforce policy to the US then I'll care about that. Not to say that Iraq was a good choice, but the US is free to act in its own perceived best interest regardless how other nations feel about it. It is not a global democracy.
2) Reference please? Look at the airwaves, the internet, publications, clubs and organizations... Their are plenty of voices speaking in favor of alternate paths without fear of prison or death.
3) Americans can travel nearly everywhere in the world and expect the support and assistance of the US gov't if they run into problems. There are certain nations deemed dangerous where those protections end. The nations on the list may be debatable, but the policy seems reasonable.
4) Torture is not condoned. What qualifies as torture is open for debate with loud voices on each side. Personally I believe that Celine Dion's voice qualifies as torture and should be banned.
5) Again, if the effort is not perceived to be in the best interest of the US it would be foolish to support or endorse the effort. The worthiness of specific efforts may be debated, but in the end it is important to recognize that there is no "global democracy".
3) Americans can travel nearly everywhere in the world and expect the support and assistance of the US gov't if they run into problems. There are certain nations deemed dangerous where those protections end. The nations on the list may be debatable, but the policy seems reasonable.
I have found web pages that list various state "NO American can travel to or from unless they have a rarely granted permit" (listed include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan).
I think that's what being referred to by Aretha's doctor.
However, these sites mislead. The only state with restrictions is Cuba. Check out
http://travel.state.gov/travel/ for more info.
"The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The Regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States. "
Also, the protections don't 'end'. Consular services are always available. The
ability to protect may be limited.
But otherwise I agree with what you're stating. Just adding the facts...
Thanks, my wording was poor. or my brain broke, one or the other.
I see that you missed your first chance to comment on this short list I submitted earlier on American democratic principles. Care to comment now? Or has your "skewed direction" lost its' way without a road map?
So please correct me if I am wrong but you are from and live in Sweden? Yes or No?
Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor
..... here are a few "off the top of my head" examples .....
1). The invasion of Irak against the wishes of the U.N. - ignoring the democratic "majority" vote.
When did the UN ever matter? They have no authority in the world, no one pays any attention to what they say or pass as resolutions, and the US basically supports the majority of all they do with our TAX payers money. Screw the UN. I say kick them out of New York and move their asses to Iceland.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
Total and utter bull shit. Prove it.
3). Completely un-democratic practice of denying Americans citizens to visit certain countries, punishable by imprisonment - democratic freedom of movement/travel
Total and utter bull shit, well other than Cuba, where else? D:
4). The sanctioning of torture "under certain circumstances" - democratic "whatever that might be called in English"
Life sucks for the rest of them, buy a helmet.
5). Refusal to comply with international efforts of ecological concerns - democratic "majority vote"
Oh really, like China and India. Don't go there you will lose big time.
These examples deal with the "now" - the "today". There are tons of additional examples to site within the last few years which still effect the situation today but were implemented during the previous decades.
I have found web pages that list various state "NO American can travel to or from unless they have a rarely granted permit" (listed include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan).
I think that's what being referred to by Aretha's doctor. ...
Correct.
The catch is that reading what you've written (from other sources "verbatim" I suppose) one will automatically assume that the "rarely granted permit" might be issued from the afore-mentioned countries. Or putting into other words, that those countries do not allow Americans to vist them, though this is not true. Never-the-less this is the interpretation most commonly voiced by Americans.
Take the point of Cuba for example. There are American agents at airports in such countries as Mexico, where flights go directly to and from Cuba. Those agents are trained in spotting American citizens disembarking from flights originating in Cuba. Once spotted those American citizens are reported to the Armerican government for prosecution.
If you are an American citizen you only need to open your passport and read what country(s) you are not allowed to visit by American law. It will be written in a slightly criptic fashion such as to be a bit unclear but if you read it well, you'll understand.
The list that
aimeecc has submitted may not be up to date but the countries on that list (plus many others) either are, or have been "off limits" for Americans by U.S. decree - not by decree of those countries.
From the Brookings link - The Dec 2007 pdf.
The Iraq Index is a statistical compilation of economic, public opinion, and security data. This resource will provide updated information on various criteria, including crime, telephone and water service, troop fatalities, unemployment, Iraqi security forces, oil production, and coalition troop strength.
The index is designed to quantify the rebuilding efforts and offer an objective set of criteria for benchmarking performance. It is the first in-depth, non-partisan assessment of American efforts in Iraq, and is based primarily on U.S. government information. Although measurements of progress in any nation-building effort can never be reduced to purely quantitative data, a comprehensive compilation of such information can provide a clearer picture and contribute to a healthier and better informed debate.
Some very informative data on this pdf. Much of which is a little overwhelming and requires more time than I have now to review, but there are some telling graphs.
Correct.
The list that aimeecc has submitted may not be up to date but the countries on that list (plus many others) either are, or have been "off limits" for Americans by U.S. decree - not by decree of those countries.
As I stated, the only current one is Cuba. I'm sure some of the other countries may have been on the list for short durations. Like when we were bombing them. Not wanting our citizens to be in a country were bombing seems like a normal enough practice. I certainly don't have a problem with that.
Cuba is purely political, and there is a large movement to end the restrictions. You are absolutely free to voice your desire to have this regulation revoked. No one will arrest you or fine you. Since you seem so passionate about these issues, what are you doing to change them? Do you write letters to your Congressman? Do you lobby Congress? How about running for office?
Don't complain about regulations if you do absolutely nothing to try to get them changed.
psst aimee - methinks she/he (Aretha's doctor) isn't from America.
The information in Iraq Index, although predominantly from the U.S. government, also gathers information from other sources. And the Brookings Institute clearly identifies where its sources are from.
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20071221.pdf
NOTE ON THE METHODOLOGY OF THE IRAQ INDEX:
Although the footnotes to the Iraq Index document our sources in detail, it is worth noting here a few broad points.
The majority of our information comes from the U.S. Government, though we must often analyze it and process it
further to show trends over the full period since Saddam Hussein fell in 2003. Some information comes from
foreign journalists on the ground and from nongovernmental organizations; a very modest amount to date comes
from Iraqi sources. Most tables and charts are straightforward representations of data as we obtain it from the
above primary sources, with only modest further analysis and processing required. However, a few graphics, such
as those on crime and unemployment rates, require more methodological work (and more assumptions) on our
part—and are as a result also perhaps somewhat less precise than most of the tables and charts.
They're most recent polling is from September 2007, from liberal media.
POLLING/POLITICS
IRAQ: WHERE THINGS STAND 2007104
UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2007
Last of 4 Surveys Conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today
(2,112 Iraqi adults from throughout the country were interviewed)
Its been released monthly since November 2003, so you can pour through back issues and see that when it was really bad, the Iraq Index was true and gave the straight facts (many killed on both sides, services lacking, negative polls). Even the most recent polls can't be quantified as "good", and sends a mixed message, as seems all polls in Iraq. But it does show that killings and deaths (on both sides) are down, and services are increasing each month.
Not wanting our citizens to be in a country were bombing seems like a normal enough practice. I certainly don't have a problem with that.
You are certainly over-simplifying the issue. I can assure you of that. In any case, your country REFUSING you to visit a country doesn't really clear your point.
Cuba is purely political, ......what are you doing to change them? Do you write letters to your Congressman? Do you lobby Congress? How about running for office?
Don't complain about regulations if you do absolutely nothing to try to get them changed.
Congressmen? Regulations? My country has an open political and trade relationship with Cuba. We also have direct charter turists flights to Cuba as well.
psst aimee - methinks she/he (Aretha's doctor) isn't from America.
It's with a painful twitch of optimism to see that
not all of your brain cells have withered and blown away.
She/he may not be... but then why care if Americans can or cannot legally travel to an extremely short list of nations the US has had occasional hostilities with?
Congressmen? Regulations? My country has an open political and trade relationship with Cuba. We also have direct charter turists flights to Cuba as well.
Thaaat's great. I'm happy for ya. Glad it works for ya. You go to Cuba, buy some cigars, have a good time.
You obviously have an axe to grind with the U.S. It's understandable, personally, I don't care. I'm not going to argue about, or defend the U.S. with some foreign national about the policies and actions of the country I'm from. I'm sure you can find lots to talk about. Good and bad.
The question at this point in time with respect to Iraq, is not whether or not we should have gone into Iraq when we did. We are there. The question is if we pull out lock, stock, and barrel right now would that be the best course for Iraq as a whole. There is lots to talk about pro and con on this issue as well.
If you have not visited Iraq, I believe that you do not have anything near a qualified opinion on the issue. That's just my opinion.
I have not been to Israel or Palestine. I do not give my unqualified opinion on the issue.
You are certainly over-simplifying the issue. I can assure you of that. In any case, your country REFUSING you to visit a country doesn't really clear your point.
Congressmen? Regulations? My country has an open political and trade relationship with Cuba. We also have direct charter turists flights to Cuba as well.
So why do you have an issue on whether I, as an American, can go to Cuba? As I plainly stated, its the only one currently on the list, and although there have been others, those have all been during hostilities with a small time frame. No, its not over simplifying, I can ASSURE you of that. Its stating the facts. With an average lifespan span of 78 years, and Sudan is on the 'no go' list for a year... I still have like 98% of my life to still go see Sudan. But wait, I've been there, its a shit hole, and I'll never go back. Not sure why any one would want to go unless they have a naive idea that they can make a difference in Darfur. Not particularly interested in going to any of the other nations on the list either, although I've been to a few of them as well.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. That's a poor argument.
I think it would be cool to visit Cuba. It pisses me off that my government won't let me go. Are we free, or not?
I've been to Iraq, and my opinion is... There's no easy solution.
If we pull out, the predictable out come is no more Americans killed (in Iraq at least). But what about Iraq? Will it descend further into civil war? I'd bet yes. Can Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki unify Iraq? Um, no.
Fast forward a few more years... more dead on both sides. Slightly improved security. More Iraqi forces trained and equipped... When the US pulls out, will it descend into civil war? I think so. The Iraqi forces will break down by sect, and sectarian violence will return. Hatred doesn't go away just because more security forces are trained. Will whomever the new PM is be able to unify Iraq? Probably not, because he probably got elected by whatever sect he's from. Probably Shi'a, unless they boycott the elections for some reason or another. The Sunnis will be pissed (again, still, always) and they'll start killing the Shia's who in turn will kill Sunnis... sound familiar?
When I was there, the Iraqi Minister of Interior would not talk to the Iraqi Minister of Defense. The US wanted to have the two coordinate on training and equipping (so the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army would have interoperable equipment), but they refused to even meet. How can reconstruction be done if the top leadership refuses to talk to each other?
Over simplified? Yeah, probably. But the hatred Iraqis show for one another doesn't disappear overnight. Or in 2 years. Or in 10. It doesn't matter how many we train or how stable we make it... once we leave, the hatred will surface and the killings will begin again.
Prior to the UN, most nations just exterminated or drove away whatever minority rebelled the most. Then the other minorities were too scared to rebel. Its harsh, but thats how it worked. Another common method was to kill the men or enslave them and send then to far reaches of the kingdom. Women were married to the soldiers, and the minority 'bred' out. So, the historic traditional solutions aren't going to work in Iraq today.
Iraq has to come to its own solution. Vietnam did. We may not like that they are Communist, but its stable there. Ok, so the quality of life isn't that great either. And they have restrictions on travel for their people (far greater than any restrictions the US has ever put on their citizens, may I point out?). And they don't have fredom of expression. Or too many other freedoms. But its stable at least.
Glatt, if you see my previous post, Cuba is purely political, not for any other reason... and I don't agree with it. But I actually don't particularly care that much because I have no desire to go to Cuba, although I've heard its nice. Just not on my list of places to go.
So, again... if you want to go to Cuba...what are you doing to change the laws? Do you write letters to your Congressman? Do you lobby Congress? How about running for office?
The Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR
Part 515 (the “Regulations”) were issued by the U.S. Government on 8
July 1963 under the Trading With the Enemy Act in response to certain
hostile actions by the Cuban government. They are still in force today and
affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are
located, all people and organizations physically in the United States, and
all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world.
The Regulations are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control. The basic goal of the sanctions is to
isolate the Cuban government economically and deprive it of U.S. dollars.
Criminal penalties for violating the sanctions range up to 10 years in
prison, $1,000,000 in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines.
Civil penalties up to $55,000 per violation may also be imposed. Please
note that the Regulations require those dealing with Cuba to maintain
records and, upon request from the U.S. Treasury Department, to
furnish information regarding such dealings.
Glatt, get elected. Make some changes. Lobby your elected officials, get involved. No one in the U.S. will threaten your life or liberty for speaking up. Well, no one on the payroll of the U.S. Treasury.
My country has an open political and trade relationship with Cuba. We also have direct charter turists flights to Cuba as well.
Great, what country? You still have not told us, but you did remove the little flag avatar by your name. Fill us in here.
Glatt, get elected. Make some changes. Lobby your elected officials, get involved.
I said it would be cool to visit, not that I was willing to work my ass off, fighting the system so I can go. There are lots of places I think it would be cool to visit. I'll go to those others first, as it is less effort.
It just pisses me off that my government won't let me go. That's what the East German government did to its citizens. We are not free if our own government restricts our travel. It's the principle of the thing.
Thaaat's great. I'm happy for ya. Glad it works for ya. You go to Cuba, buy some cigars, have a good time.
You obviously have an axe to grind with the U.S. It's understandable, personally, I don't care. I'm not going to argue about, or defend the U.S. with some foreign national about the policies and actions of the country I'm from. I'm sure you can find lots to talk about. Good and bad.
The question at this point in time with respect to Iraq, is not whether or not we should have gone into Iraq when we did. We are there. The question is if we pull out lock, stock, and barrel right now would that be the best course for Iraq as a whole. There is lots to talk about pro and con on this issue as well.
Here, here.
:cheerldr:
Glatt, our laws are malleable. Get off of your ass, quit complaining, hell continue complaining....just get off of your ass and change it.
Glatt, our laws are malleable. Get off of your ass, quit complaining, hell continue complaining....just get off of your ass and change it.
All laws are malleable, our govenment, Constitution, all of it is a living breathing document subject to adjustment as time changes. The next 8 months should be interesting, as will the following 4 years.
Ok, seriously, the only nation we have restrictions on is Cuba. There's still 190 others to go to. Not sure this is really comparable to East Germany not letting its people step foot in any non-Communist nation. We allow our poeple to go to Communist nations, Islamic nations, Socialist nations, Fascist nations...
Also, how often do you hear about people being fined and/or arrested for going to Cuba? You can bet many of the people that go are wealthy and famous, and if they were harassed, it would be front page news. Heck, the liberal media would make a big deal about anyone getting busted for going to Cuba, just to insult the government. So, fly to Mexico, hop on a flight to Cuba.
There are also a ton of other nations we do not have direct flights to. Tonga comes to mind. A nice Methodist nation. Just way too small and too far away for a direct flight. But I wouldn't mind visiting Tonga.
Ok, seriously, the only nation we have restrictions on is Cuba. There's still 190 others to go to. Not sure this is really comparable to East Germany not letting its people step foot in any non-Communist nation. We allow our poeple to go to Communist nations, Islamic nations, Socialist nations, Fascist nations...
Also, how often do you hear about people being fined and/or arrested for going to Cuba? You can bet many of the people that go are wealthy and famous, and if they were harassed, it would be front page news. Heck, the liberal media would make a big deal about anyone getting busted for going to Cuba, just to insult the government. So, fly to Mexico, hop on a flight to Cuba.
There are also a ton of other nations we do not have direct flights to. Tonga comes to mind. A nice Methodist nation. Just way too small and too far away for a direct flight. But I wouldn't mind visiting Tonga.
We actually do have people who go to Cuba for business and limited trade. My neighbor is one of them. They import food goods and health care items from the US on a regular basis.
Glatt, our laws are malleable. Get off of your ass, quit complaining, hell continue complaining....just get off of your ass and change it.
So now nobody in the Cellar is allowed to point out flaws in the system that piss them off unless they are actively working to fix those flaws?
I don't want to waste my time fighting an uphill battle with the US Government to change the Cuba policy. It's not a priority for me. It doesn't mean I can't complain about it, or point out the flaws.
Heck, the liberal media would make a big deal about anyone getting busted for going to Cuba, just to insult the government. So, fly to Mexico, hop on a flight to Cuba.
Why would I want to do something that would get me busted? When did I ever give you the impression that I was looking to get busted to make a political point?
So now nobody in the Cellar is allowed to point out flaws in the system that piss them off unless they are actively working to fix those flaws?
Glatt, my backlash "do something" really wasn't intended for you (and yes, I did direct it to you). It was more about those who are bashing the US and its policies yet either don't live here or don't do anything to change it.
Yes, we are all allowed to criticize, and most of us do! It just gets to me to read someones continual ranting (and it wasn't yours) when they do nothing.
So, go ahead and sit on your lazy arse and complain. I do it all the time!
She/he may not be... but then why care if Americans can or cannot legally travel to an extremely short list of nations the US has had occasional hostilities with?
Cuz she/he is probably from one of those little bothersome places that need to trash Amereica to make them feel good about their own country. We're America and they NEED us not to be good. Its the only chance their insignificance has any chance at being relevant.
:f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207: :f207:
I wouldn't call it a flaw, personally. Glatt, you have the right to complain! I'd be glad to listen.
why care if Americans can or cannot legally travel to an extremely short list of nations the US has had occasional hostilities with?
Because it demonstrates an anti-democratic principle.
If you, as an American, call your country
"the leader of the democratic world" or
"leader of the free world" or
"introducing democracy to Irak or to wherever ..." then I think you ought to know some of the reasons why you have been misinformed. The fact that I am not an American should definitely upset you. But for the reason that you have a better chance of hearing the facts about your own country from a "foreigner", which brings us to another reason why you've been misinformed about democratic principles - your censorship of the national media.
The truth is that there are a number of countries that practice far better democratic principles than the U.S. Do you disbelieve that?
you did [SIZE="4"]remove [/SIZE]the little flag avatar by your name. .
Huh? What? Eh? Never had one.
If you, as an American, call your country "the leader of the democratic world" or "leader of the free world" or "introducing democracy to Irak or to wherever ..." then I think you ought to know some of the reasons why you have been misinformed.
Well I certainly have never called our country those things. And the ones who usually are calling us those things are usually idiots from other countries who have some bone to pick with our international policies. Frankly, I could give a rats ass.
This may be the only time that I agree with you Merc - well, partly anyway.
This may be the only time that I agree with you Merc - well, partly anyway.
The point is that most of this international back lash is all about Iraq. Well we are stuck with that tar baby and we cannot just leave. And to all of those who think we can I would say let them stand up and be counted, including those who are currently in power or may soon hold the keys to the White House. And when the smoke clears and there is a massive genocide and relocation of people in Iraq you will hold the responsibility for the event, not me. Certainly do not ask me or my family to go back there and fix it after that.
I really believe that if the US is viewed in such a bad way by so many people it is time for us to withdraw a bit from the international scene, esp with our aid programs, and let the chips fall where they will...
The point is that most of this international back lash is all about Iraq. Well we are stuck with that tar baby and we cannot just leave. ...
Look. The U.N. was actively working on diplomatic leverage to solve Iraks problems WITHOUT war. America said that diplomacy was
out of the question because Irak was in posession of WMD's - poised to strike at the world at a second's notice. It wasn't a mistake -
THE U.S. LIED! When you're done smoking that pipe you can crawl (on your knees) and beg the U.N. to try to get back on the track that they had started before the United Snakes rushed in with all of their bombs and war machinerery and created a far worse problem then it ever was.
The U.N. was correct from the very beginning.
[SIZE="4"]If they are willing [/SIZE]to find a solution to America's blunder then you ought to beg them to do what they can. Personally, if I had the say I'd leave the Americans there to stew in their own shit but I don't have the majority vote in the U.N. You can be happy for that.
Look. The U.N. was actively working on diplomatic leverage to solve Iraks problems WITHOUT war. America said that diplomacy was out of the question because Irak was in posession of WMD's - poised to strike at the world at a second's notice. It wasn't a mistake - THE U.S. LIED! When you're done smoking that pipe you can crawl (on your knees) and beg the U.N. to try to get back on the track that they had started before the United Snakes rushed in with all of their bombs and war machinerery and created a far worse problem then it ever was.
The U.N. was correct from the very beginning. [SIZE="4"]If they are willing [/SIZE]to find a solution to America's blunder then you ought to beg them to do what they can. Personally, if I had the say I'd leave the Americans there to stew in their own shit but I don't have the majority vote in the U.N. You can be happy for that.
Screw that and screw the UN. Neither I or anyone I know will "crawl (on your knees) and beg the U.N." for anything. The UN had done nothing, still does nothing, and will not do anything in the future. And last time I checked we pretty much are there in Iraq to "stew in their own shit" {mostly by ourselves with a smattering from the UK} which is why people like you have no say as to how we deal with it and your opinion on the issue is not really relevant.
Huh. AD really IS a twat.
:corn:
... last time I checked we pretty much are there in Iraq to [SIZE="4"]"stew in their own shit"[/SIZE] which is why people like you have no say as to how we deal with it .
That's great by me. I will have my wish granted. I'll need to stock up on munchies for the nightly news list of how many more Yanks won't be coming home in one piece. :corn:
That's great by me. I will have my wish granted. I'll need to stock up on munchies for the nightly news list of how many more Yanks won't be coming home in one piece. :corn:
That thought should win you some friends around here...
That's great by me. I will have my wish granted. I'll need to stock up on munchies for the nightly news list of how many more Yanks won't be coming home in one piece. :corn:
Oops. Your hatred is showing!
Like Buddha, but without the belly
More appropriately;
"Like Buddha without the nirvana."Why does everyone pick on my user title? Marichiko used to do that, and so did Dov...and Hugo Chavez...
Why does everyone pick on my user title?
It's because your character is so extremely far removed from anything resembling
humble, budhist
enlightenment. I would say that you are the anti-budhist and yet you chose Budha as your sig. Strange.
No, my title was a gift from a fellow Dwellar. Um, you know nothing about me, AD. I find all your presumptions amusing. And you seem really angry---being a teenager is a confusing and emotional time. Hang in there and things will get better as you move thru life! Best of luck to you!
wow, i think we have a new winner of the "Most Annoying New Dwellar" award. It's been quite awhile since we had such a pompous clueless ass show up here.
AD, if you knew the background behind Brianna's user title, I hope you wouldn't have said what you just said.
It is a reference to her present lack of hair and thin appearance.
This is caused by her chemotherapy.
Yes, she has cancer.
How do you feel now?
You've said some things I agreed with, and some things I didn't like. I haven't yet made up my mind about you ... but your next post should just about let me know.
Well let me just say it is great seeing Bri getting her spunkiness back! Yea!
AD - You're true colors have shown. Best for all if you crawl back under the rock you came out from and call it a day. Your anti-US sentiment and jealousy of what we are adn you are obviously are NOT is transparent. Go grind your axe elsewhere.
AD, ... your next post should just about let me know.
Lack of post speaks volumes.
Well let me just say it is great seeing Bri getting her spunkiness back! Yea!
Merc likes spunk. :drool:
Hey....don't we all?
well then, have i got a deal for you?!?:D
Wow. Aretha's Doctor. Mature, spirited discussion is one thing, being mean is another. Actually being malicious is what it seems you are being.
I want to do this with out insulting you. If that's possible. It's not my intention to insult you.
Perhaps you could take a step back and evaluate your intentions, and actions here in this community.
If someone offers me a gift, and I don't accept it, who's gift is it?
Damn AD. How about getting lost?
Here's a bit of a sweet
story from Iraq.
For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad.
Although the white flakes quickly dissolved into gray puddles, they brought an emotion rarely expressed in this desert capital snarled by army checkpoints, divided by concrete walls and ravaged by sectarian killings — delight.
"For the first time in my life I saw a snow-rain like this falling in Baghdad," said Mohammed Abdul-Hussein, a 63-year-old retiree from the New Baghdad area.
Yo AD, a few things. One, you can't come up to anyone in any country and start giving non-constructive criticism and expect to be taken seriously. Look up past threads started by duck_duck and see how irrational she got. Instead of just insulting people, try to look at these issues from our point of view and then hopefully you will see just how complicated they are. Bring up points that you disagree with and give suggestions on how to solve it and then we will respond with why we either disagree with those solutions or why they can not work in the United States. Most of the critical European folks I've debated had very little idea how the United States works and I have a feeling that you might be in that group even though you aren't nearly as extreme as some I've met.
Second, stop with the nationalistic bullshit and pretending that the United States is evil while Sweden (or wherever) is all good. All the Western nations have blood on their hands, including yours, and even if you don't actually do the killing, you benefit from it. As I said earlier in other threads, the United States is just protecting its interests, which are more extreme than your country's, but we do mostly share the same interests, so you still benefit from what we do. All the Western European countries are liberal, not progressive.
Yes, she has cancer.
How do you feel now?
Other than recovering from a recent canal root job at the dentist, I feel fine. Thank you for asking
As for our friend and her medical condition - if she is touchy about her self (and I wouldn't fault her if she is) then she ought to hang a sign around her neck telling everyone,
"I have cancer! Any reply to me must be made upon egg shells!"
Sorry, Mr. Zen but I can't oblige you. The fact that she has cancer is completely irrelevant to the coments I made about her "sig". You have no idea of the life I've endured either because i don't think it is really anyone's business or anyone's responsibilty
[SIZE="4"]but mine[/SIZE]. That's the way that I deal with my difficulties but it certainly must not be everyone's way to deal with life. I respect everyone on that point. In any case, if you (or anyone else) happen to say something that strikes a nerve then I'll have to make my own decision whether to ignore it or stay away from the fourm. Calling someone out on the carpet for something he/she could not have possibly known is not my style and I would have hoped that it is not the practice of anyone else either. It's interesting that it is
YOU who thinks it's so important to point out her personal problems - not she. She might have informed me on the personal messages, if she thought it would be a good idea, but I'm guessing that she's more in tune with reality than you and is better prepared to get on with life.
How do you feel now?
As for our friend and her medical condition - if she is touchy about her self (and I wouldn't fault her if she is) then she ought to hang a sign around her neck telling everyone, "I have cancer! Any reply to me must be made upon egg shells!"
*shakes head* Have you considered employing the strategy of tact once in a while?
That's great by me. I will have my wish granted. I'll need to stock up on munchies for the nightly news list of how many more Yanks won't be coming home in one piece. :corn:
Let this be a lesson to everyone .... Never, never, never, never, ever make a sensitive reply if you're in a rush and about to shut down your computer! Think it through, be sure it's complete and that it states
EXACTLY what you want to say with all the loopholes plugged.
I may not win any friends (despite this addition) but what I left out of my message was thoughtless. I don't even know how to apologise sufficiently. Anyway, what I carelesly failed to say was this .....
Every dead American will be one more small step in bringing the Americans home again. We're witnessing a carbon copy of Vietnam on that point. It is when the mothers and fathers of dead American soldiers take to the streets in the thousands and
DEMAND the end to U.S. involvment in Irak that a retreat will take place. But probably not before then.
Yo AD, you can't come up to anyone in any country and start giving non-constructive criticism and expect to be taken seriously.
Most of the critical European folks I've debated had very little idea how the United States works...
Second, stop with the nationalistic bullshit and pretending that the United States is evil... All the Western nations have blood on their hands, including yours, and even if you don't actually do the killing, you benefit from it. All the Western European countries are liberal, not progressive.
yup, I'll second that
Every dead American will be one more small step in bringing the Americans home again. We're witnessing a carbon copy of Vietnam on that point.
U R DUM
drawn before the latest, and very striking reduction in casualties per month for the last six months. 23 casualties in December.
U R DUM
Here's a bit of a sweet story from Iraq.
And here I though the odds of a US 'victory' in Iraq was a snowball's chance in hell.
Now that we actually have snowballs in hell, I need to come up with a new analogy.
How about "An apology's chance from Bush".
The truth is that there are a number of countries that practice far better democratic principles than the U.S. Do you disbelieve that?
Griff you responded to the argument by implying that there are countries which are far worse than the U.S. I don't think anyone here disagrees with this.
As for democratic principles,
this census shows that in recent presidential, not off-year elections, of potential voters only 70-72 percent are registered and 58-64 percent vote.
Even in some countries where
compulsory voting is not or is no longer practiced, they manage better turnouts.
IDEA places the US 139 out of 172. I am still trying to figure out if countries which exclude women from voting are penalized or rewarded in the counting, but in any case based on voter turnout alone, the US is not the most democratic country in the world.
Is voter turnout the sole criteria? No, but turnout can be an indicator of apathy, which can be either a cause of, or effect from, the failure of governments to truly represent the majority of citizens above special interests.
Are we the worst? No. In general, in terms of safety, wealth, and freedom, the US is better than most countries in the world. We are also not the world's most populous. A child be born in the world today has (I'm guessing) about a 1 in 20 chance of being born a U.S. citizen. The child would be 4 times more likely to be born Chinese, 3 times more likely to be born Indian, and 2/3 to 1/2 as likely to be born in Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, or Bangladesh.
If I were given a choice from that list, knowing what I know now (to quote a famous politician), I would still choose to be born here.
Right now the system is a bit f***d up. However, our founding fathers gave us a self-correcting and non-violent system to effect change if we choose to use it. Personally, I think we will simply because deep down we all know things can't go on this way much longer.
Those are all French instances of anti-democratic and / or poor international acting. Through several threads we've seen commentary from A D about our poor record which I readily admit and questions about our stability which I also have. Assuming he's French, I just want to be sure he isn't holding France up as a model for stable democracies.
Swedish tourists evacuated from Kenya
Jan 07, 2008
Stockholm, Sweden - More than 300 Swedish tourists have been evacuated from Kenya amid chaos following the African nation's contentious presidential election.
Swedish travel operators pulled 354 tourists from Mombasa Saturday -- five days ahead of schedule, The Local reported Sunday.
It is not suspected the tourists encountered any violence first-hand, the Local said.
Travel officials have canceled all remaining flights from Sweden to Kenya for the season.
What? How dare they interfere with the free travel of Swedish citizens. Outrageous.
Those are all French instances of anti-democratic and / or poor international acting. Through several threads we've seen commentary from A D about our poor record which I readily admit and questions about our stability which I also have. Assuming he's French, I just want to be sure he isn't holding France up as a model for stable democracies.
I agree. The French and the U.S. have very similar pedigrees. We were both created by revolution from monarchies. We are both Republics. We both annexed colonies or territories. We both are struggling with immigration issues.
The reason that the French appear to annoy Europeans more than Americans do is
a) Proximity - France is not quite in the middle of Europe
b) Military - The U.S. has one of the largest armies in the world. We currently have only one loss due to forfeit (Vietnam) and one tie (Korea). The French have pretty much lost any conflict in the past 100 years to any country that had access to gunpowder. In spite of this many people feel they are as arrogant as the US. If a bulldog growls and barks it gets respect. If a miniature poodle does the same it gets annoyed looks.
That being said, they do have great food, nice music, grand architecture, and some of the most beautiful women in the world.
I'd also trade GWB in for Sarkozy in a heartbeat. The man has even managed to out-Clinton Clinton in the mistress department. Instead of a chubby intern, the man is screwing a supermodel!
Yep. France is awesome, but they have many of the same issues we do. American women kinda rock though, being from everywhere and all.
Yep. France is awesome, but they have many of the same issues we do. American women kinda rock though, being from everywhere and all.
Difficult to make a comparison without a taste test.;)
We now return you to your previously scheduled thread.
AD sent me a PM asking why I am not defending him against you all and your bashing of him due to what he said about my sig. as he couldn't possibly know about me (yet he presumed to know about me by saying I have no "nirvana"; clearly, he's never seen me post-demerol injetion) so here is this: Please leave AD alone and let him say whatever he wants without censure or contrariness on your part(s). He is only trying to express himself and if you can't see that he is in PAIN and is a HUMAN and it's not his FAULT that your tiny mind(s) cannot understand him and his brilliant strategy for running the world and taking over America (really, he's only trying to save us from ourselves--somebody has to!)
Sufficient, AD?
You're kind of a snot, aren't you? Presumptuous asshat.
Yep. France is awesome, but they have many of the same issues we do. American women kinda rock though, being from everywhere and all.
France Sux.
snip~ Please leave AD alone and let him say whatever he wants without censure or contrariness on your part(s). He is only trying to express himself and if you can't see that he is in PAIN and is a HUMAN and it's not his FAULT that your tiny mind(s) cannot understand him and his brilliant strategy for running the world and taking over America (really, he's only trying to save us from ourselves--somebody has to!)
Sufficient, AD?
You're kind of a snot, aren't you? Presumptuous asshat.
What did I tell ya!
No matter what you're seeing in the mirror, Bri... I know it's still you in there, baby. You feel like shit, but you're still that irascible bitch we all love.
Brianna,
I don't know you really. I thought you handled that very well.:notworthy
Fuck the French and the Swede's...
US deaths in Iraq hit four-year low
[SIZE="2"]Published: January 2 2008 02:11 | Last updated: January 2 2008 02:11
[/SIZE]
US military deaths in Iraq fell in December to the lowest monthly total in almost four years, and estimates of civilian deaths also showed a sharp decline.
However, 28 people were reported killed in a suicide bombing in east Baghdad on Tuesday, underscoring that the violence continues.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Turkish jets strike targets in Kurdish Iraq - Dec-27
Iraqi minister allays fears over Sunni groups - Dec-24
US cautions on Iraq progress - Dec-19
Snub for Rice over Turkey airstrike on Iraq - Dec-18
US weighs Iraq post-surge troop levels - Dec-18
Editorial Comment: Beating the retreat from a broken Iraq - Dec-17
Twenty-two US troops were reported killed in December, the lowest total since February 2004 and the second-lowest monthly toll of the war. A British soldier also died as the result of an accident. In contrast, the US military reported 112 fatalities in December 2006.
The independent Iraq Body Count, a website that tallies press reports of civilian deaths, logged 902 Iraqi fatalities in December, compared with more than 2,500 for each of July and August. Government ministries noted 481 civilian deaths, compared with 1,930 in December 2006.
In a sign of increased public confidence, residents of several Baghdad districts danced in the streets and set off fireworks to mark the new year in midnight celebrations that would have been difficult to imagine in the fear-racked capital of a year ago.
US and Iraqi officials credit the decline in violence to the “surge” of US troops, as well as Sunni Arab rejection of the radical al-Qaeda movement and a ceasefire called by Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shia cleric.
Troop numbers in Iraq, however, are already beginning to come down, and Iraqi politicians have yet to reach agreements on key issues that divide the country’s ethnic and sectarian blocs. Senior US commander General David Petraeus warned on Saturday that progress was “tenuous in many areas and could be reversed”.
Despite the decline in violence in its second half, the first six months of 2007 were deadly for US troops and Iraqi civilians. With about 900 deaths reported, 2007 was the bloodiest year of the war for the US military.
AD sent me another PM. It speaks for itself:
"Considering your public response and my studies of psycological matters, I’m now compeltely convinced that you haven’t any life-threatening illness at all and that you are merely putting it on to win sympathy unjustly. You’re a very sad human being indeed."
He thinks I'm faking having breast cancer--oh, if only he could've seen my breasts!! He'd know I'd never joke about them!!
what a maroon!
anyhoo---he's a sociopath. I suggest we poke him with a stick until he says "Uncle!"
__________________
That he was devoid of manners and empathy was clear, but that line ... :eek:
It's a pity 'cause some of what he says is kind of interesting.
I had been working on the theory that he had arrived from other boards which were by default adversarial, assumed that it would be the same here, and was taking a while to learn that it is generally otherwise. But I dunno ... when do we unleash the pet dog discussion?
Well...I'm generally quite uncomfortable about PMs being shared with the board and I also know the ease with which a small community like ours can slip into bullying/gang mentality....in this instance, however, I'd say a PM like that constitutes harrassment.
AD if you are reading this, can I very politely ask you to fuck off? How dare you jump to such a conclusion based on a smattering of board replies. Brianna has shared the ups and downs of her illness, from the fear of her first diagnosis, through to seeking advice on treatment, the depression and nasuea of early chemo and the loss of her hair (hence the Buddha sig) right through to the up days of late when she's been able to return to classes and go out and about.
Again, I repeat, fuck off. You took a risk in sending that PM. The risk being if you were wrong (which you are) you could be seriously upsetting someone who is dealing with one of the hardest trials possible in life. That you took that risk tells me that you either a) cannot conceive of being wrong, or b) don't give a shit if you upset someone in those circumstances.
Either way you just lost any respect/liking that was starting to build in my mind. The anti-American stuff, well, we've had that before and its not the worst thing in the world. But you just walked into our bar and insulted our friend, insulted and risked hurting/upsetting deeply. Fuck you.
wow. thanks, Dana.
You know, I've never shared a PM before now but I DID share these--the one in full glorious quotes--because AD is bothering me with these things. I want to know if Tony can keep him from sending me PM's.
Brianna, thanks for being who you are - Its great that you have the wherewithall to deal with this asshat as well as you have considering all the other "crap" you are dealing with in your life. Oh and to answer your question - banned people cannot send pm's - just sayin.
Dana, Thanks for such an eloquent response. Your political acumen is shining.
AD, Just go fuck off.
[SIZE=1](sorry, couldn't resist)[/SIZE]
Well...I'm generally quite uncomfortable about PMs being shared with the board .....
Then you ought to have reserved your judgement until which time that I might sink so low to have posted her MPs to me. I'm guessing that had both her PMs and mine been posted here for you to see, that you would not have continued with this below ...
..... can I very politely ask you to fuck off? .....
Again, I repeat, fuck off. ....
Fuck you.
I'd rather that you
NOT "fuck off",
Dana. I think you should remain for the duration of the hump and you may come to realize that you have made an error in judgement.
To answer the burning question ... will I post those PMs "in full"? The answer is "no". Your first instinct was the more sensible one and you should have followed that instinct of being
"uncomfortable about PMs being shared with the board".
I'll make you a promise never-the-less. If Briana posts
ALL of my (AND HER) PMs here ("in full", without any paraphrasing, etc.) ..... and you still feel that I should "fuck off", then I'll do exactly that, never to return. Simple, yes? That should sound fair to you.
Until your profane outburst above you were the one I respected the most on this board, but I'll ignore my distaste for your reply and fall back on both my first impressions of your character and my promise to you, above. It is beause of my better impressions of you that this promise applies to you,
Dana, and to no-one else. It is your decision and yours alone.
So ........ ? What will it be?
I should "fuck off", then I'll do exactly that, never to return.
can we just skip to this part?
you have made the trip from the registration page to the land of unwelcome faster than any poster i remember.
Tony--I am being slandered. I have never ONCE PM'd AD. Is there any way for you to prove this? This guy is getting scary.
PM number one from AD to me:
Brianna.
You know very well that my comment about your sig had nothing to with your illness. I would have thought that anyone could clearly see that. And all that crap in my direction because of it is completely unfair. You also must realize that my comment couldn’t possibly have anything to with it ANYWAY as I didn’t know anything about your condition in the first place.
Now I’m curious to know why it is that you haven’t spoken up in my defense? That’s not very kind of you, is it.
Aretha's doctor
I gave no response except the public one on the board. same goes for PM number two.
Quite honestly AD, it wouldn't matter in the least what has or hasn't been put in PMs. The single line about her not having cancer, is enough to me. I neither want nor require your respect.
Banned.
As people point out, the FAQ says...
The Cellar is like an electronic tavern. Behave as you might at a real-life tavern. Don't barge in and interrupt every table in the place. Walk in and sit down, wait for something you know about and politely put in your two cents.
AD barged in, declared loudly that he despised half the people in the tavern, and then picked up a full lager and poured it over the favorite regular's head. When asked to apologize, he refused and picked up another beer. Sometimes you don't need to wait to see what comes next.
Wow... I leave for a few days and all heck has broken loose. Now, I'm not for censorship, and this is a place for free expression, but can we all be adults (AD)? We don't have to agree or get along, but there is something to be said for respecting other people.
There is no need for anyone to defend anyone else. The fact that others came to Bris defense is because she's... well, liked and respected. AD - if you have to ask someone to defend you, are you worth defending? Why couldn't you be mature and post a simple gomen-asi, instead of continuing to rant and asking Bri to defend you?
On your opinion that US isn't a democracy, the majority of your posts are backed by no truth whatsoever. We restrict media? Come on. Anything but. In fact, I wish we would restrict them. Frankly, I don't need to see Brittney Spears ta-ta. Our media makes it a daily program to Bush bash and state how bad things are in Iraq without actually reporting any news. Not that I am a fan of Bush or the Iraq war, but the media is definitely left-wing. And they have the freedom to report on anything, no matter the truth.
The UN? What were they doing? Oh, yeah, having the inspectors kicked out, or when not kicked out, being refused in to see the facilities. Oh, yeah, that's real progress. So let's see... they were accused of having WMD (and rightfully so... they had the material, and the desire), and the refused to let inspectors inspect. Yet we were in the wrong? Oh, let us not forget that Saddam gased his own people for decades. Killing hundreds of thousands. Sarin and mustard gasses were discovered post-invasion. Hmmm... I wonder who he was going to use those on? If not a US target (and it probably wouldn't have been) then it would most likely be his own people (as usual) and then the US would be accused of doing nothing to stop him.
Stop accusing the US of being undemocratic without any facts to back it up.
Sarin and mustard gasses were discovered post-invasion.
Well that spin has long since been proven false - a complete outright lie that has no responsible sources but was promoted, as a lie, for a political agenda. The worst kind of spin.
No, that is a fact. Go check it yourself.
No, that is a fact. Go check it yourself.
You made the claim. Least you could do is provide some supporting facts. Well the facts have been repeatedly and widely published for a long time now. First the 75th Exploitation Task Force searched all over Iraq and found nothing. Then David Kay was assigned a (1000 man?) task force. When they could find no chemical weapons production, then the new theory was that Saddam had built a 'surge capacity' to quickly create those chemical weapons on demand.
When Kay went back to Iraq in August, he soon found that even his "surge capacity" theory for chemical weapons didn't hold up. The ISG could find no trace of such a program.
Meanwhile Cheney kept promoting spin - lies - on Meet the Press.
Cheney once again talked about links between Saddam's regime and bin Laden, claiming that Iraq's support for al-Qaeda was "clearly official policy". He once more cited the Czech report about Mohamed Atta in Praque as through it were still credible. He ignored the dispute over mobile bioweapons labs and insisted without equivocation that the US government had found "two of them" - even though David Kay had told him that was not true. ...
The lack of WMDs was but on worry for the Bush administration...
Russert asked If CIA analysts were to be proven wrong, "shouldn't we have a wholesale investigation into the intelligence failure ..."
"What failure", Cheney interjected. "That Saddam had biological, chemical, and developing a nuclear program", Russert replied.
"My guess is in the end they'll be proven right, Tim"
There is the spin source for mythical chemical weapons. The same source was 100% wrong about all WMDs - including chemical weapons. Same source even claimed an allied relationship between Saddam and bin Laden when every responsible person knew otherwise.
Liar also created that spin about chemical weapons found? That myth still survives? Even a 'surge capacity' never existed. Sarin and mustard gasses were
NOT discovered post-invasion. And yet some spin doctors still promote the lie long after well proven false.
aimeecc - that is reality once we eliminate the spin promoted by Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada. Even the production facilities - the 'surge capacity' - did not exist - in direct opposition to what you have posted. I checked it out long ago. I learned the facts by asking damning questions. Did you? Or did you just believe the first thing you were told? That would make you a perfect target for Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.
No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada. Even the production facilities - the 'surge capacity' - did not exist - in direct opposition to what you have posted. I checked it out long ago. I learned the facts by asking damning questions. Did you? Or did you just believe the first thing you were told? That would make you a perfect target for Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.
You are the one spinning, so quit the accusations and do a google search. Almost every mainstream media reported on the finds. Or do I have to google for you? Or do you not believe the news? I can't find one mainstream media that claims it was a hoax of any sort. Or do you have your own intelligence agency you get your spin from?
I'm not a Limbaugh fan, can't say I've heard him in years.
Oh what the heck, I'll google for you for news
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
And don't forget the entire ISG findings, in which you cherry picked.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/index.html
Since you cherry pick your points, I will mine. Actually, I leave the majority in
On 30 September 2004 the ISG released its final report on Iraq's WMD programs. Its key findings regarding Iraqi chemical weapons programs were as follows.
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.
Iraq's CW program was crippled by the Gulf War and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base.
The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf War and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions.
Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.
ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related.
From your links:
"Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable,"
"the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective.""
If you count these old corroded non-functioning shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war as WMDs, then I guess there were WMDs, but I think they have to work to be counted.
It's sorta a case of proving tw to be incorrect in one sentence-
"No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada."
- while simultaneously bolstering his argument and supporting the rest of his argument.
Oh what the heck, I'll google for you for news
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm
You are doing what was required - provide supporting facts. Now you are indignant because forced to do what your were required? I am amused ... an emotion.
Your Washington Post citation discusses what would be an insurgent lab attempting to create some unknown chemicals. Why do you post this as proof of Saddam's WMD program? It is clearly not. A slew of dangerous chemicals not assembled to produce anything. Meanwhile we make semiconductors with same chemicals that were also used as chemical weapons. Does that prove I too am building a WMD? And still none of this has anything to do with Saddam as aimeecc claims. Even that Fallujah lab was apparently created after Saddam was gone.
Your usa.today article from 2004 of what Polish troops suspected was later found, as I recall, to not be weaponized chemicals. Meanwhile, periodically found were empty shells that were once part of Saddam's WMD program. Empty shells because that WMD program was destroyed by UN sanctions - again contradicting aimeecc's assertions.
David Kay who led the ISG effort strongly believed he would find these WMDs. But as reported repeatedly, no such weapons - including chemical weapons - were found.
One fact that still puzzles all is where something like 35% of the chemical weapons went. It was well known (except where spin remains popular) from interviews that Saddam ordered the destruction of his WMDs in 1995. Also known is that records of what and how much were destroyed where were poorly maintained or did not exist.
When he resigned in January 2004 as head of ISG, and from Fiasco by Thomas Ricks
David Kay ... announced that he concluded that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons stockpiles in the 1990s, but had tried to bluff about still having them in order to maintain an image of power. "Everyone was wrong", Kay said. ...
In October 2004, Charles Duefler, who succeeded Kay as head of the ISG, produced the groups final findings. There was no such arsenal, the weapons inspector concluded in a one-thousand page report. Saddam has eliminated his weapons in the early 1990s, but had tried to perserve the intellectual and physical ability to restart the weapons programs at some point. Duelfer also said that he had found no evidence of an effort to buy uranium from other countries. And he testified to the Senate that, as some analysts had suspected, the aluminum tubes Iraq was buying, which the Bush administration had made central to the arugment that Iraq was developing a nuclear capability, were indeed for conventional military rockets.
Kay further explains where so much of these false rumors come from.
"This was a vice president who was well read in the intelligence and knew the details of the WMD issue" ... But Kay did see a problem in Cheney's analytical view: "He kept remembering little facts that he thought proved big conclusions. The problem with intelligence is that little facts often don't prove anything, let alone something big. They're just pieces of puzzles - sometimes just pieces that don't even make a puzzle."
Let's move on to that Duefler report - the final ISG report in October 2004. Key findings from Regime Strategic Intent:
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. ...
Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD ...
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991 ... Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. ...
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.
IOW Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs due to an Iranian threat. But he had no plans and had no actions. aimeecc ignored that important fact. Saddam had no plans and had no actions. Saddam needed sanctions to end so that he could address his Iranian threat. He had no intent to attack America despite popular myth (spin) that suggested otherwise. Saddam did everything necessary to meet UN restrictions while still bluffing - because Saddam's threat was Iran - not America or Israel.
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
Above quote directly contradicts aimeecc's claims.
Iraq’s CW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s.
Saddam did not even have capacity to start a legitamite chemical industry - let alone a weapons program.
Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW related efforts.
As noted above, even I worked in transistor factories that use chemicals also used for chemical warfare. Using spin, both Saddam and I could be accused of a chemical weapons program.
Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities.
Which means Saddam had no ongoing WMD programs or WMD weapons stored as amieecc would assume.
Iraq initially chose not to fully declare its CW weapons and infrastructure, a decision usually attributed to Husayn Kamil and implemented by senior personnel including his senior deputy, Amer al-Sa’adi.
• Anticipating that inspections would be an ineffective and short-lived inconvenience, Iraqi leaders decided in early April 1991 to hide signifi cant components of the CW program, including weapons, precursors, and equipment.
• Following a particularly invasive IAEA inspection in late-June 1991, Saddam ordered Dr. Mahmud Faraj Bilal, former deputy of the CW program, to destroy all hidden CW and BW materials, according to an interview with Bilal after OIF.
• Available evidence indicates Iraq destroyed its hidden CW weapons and precursors, but key documentation and dual-use equipment were retained and were later discovered by inspectors. ...
In August 1995, ... Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq’s WMD programs, Husayn Kamil, fled the country. Saddam made a decision at that time to declare virtually all hidden information and material they felt was significant on Iraq’s programs, turning over WMD documentation, including 12 trunks of CW documents.
But then tw has been saying same all along. Saddam terminated all chemical weapons programs in direct contradition to posts by aimeecc.
aimeecc - your interpretation of the final SIG report forgets to include parts where Saddam then gave up all his chemical weapons. Forgetting that part is called telling a half truth - also described as spin. Such forgetfulness is also found among those others who use poltical agendas rather than facts. Saddam was not a threat to anyone in 2001. Why do you believe he had WMDs when he clearly did not? Why do you forget to mention the bottom line conclusions bluntly stated by both David Kay and by Deufler's reports? Saddam had no WMDs no matter how you spin it.
It was well known (except where spin remains popular) from interviews that Saddam ordered the destruction of his WMDs in 1995. Also known is that records of what and how much were destroyed where were poorly maintained or did not exist.
So, we know they were destroyed because somebody said so. Were these the same somebodys that told us who to send to Gitmo?
So, we know they were destroyed because somebody said so. Were these the same somebodys that told us who to send to Gitmo?
We know they were destroyed because the people who said so did so without torture, were tested by professional interviewers confirming their stories against others testimony, and because many of the interviewees even implicating themselves by being so honest. The report notes how interviewers were surprised how many were so candid about everything. The Duefler report includes a section on why they know their report is so accurate.
Furthermore hard evidence confirms what was discovered in those interviews. The facts were overwhelming. Gitmo was not taking Iraqi prisoners. Gen Miller had not yet started up American torture chambers in two cell blocks in Abu Ghiad.
However later on as the administration was frustrated with no finding WMDs, then torture was approved. One Iraqi General was killed in Abu Ghriad while being tortured because he would not give up WMDs - so that report says. But then he could not give up what did not exist. So Americans basically murdered that man for no reason other than Cheney's poltical agenda.
Don't miss another fact also included in previous posted quotes. Claims by both George Jr and Cheney use 11 September to justify "Mission Accomplished". Many posts by another here denies that fact. But again, he often uses poltical agendas to justify his conclusions. The reality was both George Jr and Cheney claimed Saddam was allied with bin Laden. To say otherwise is to rewrite history - to spin it.
One Iraqi General was killed in Abu Ghriad while being tortured because he would not give up WMDs - so that report says. But then he could not give up what did not exist. So Americans basically murdered that man for no reason other than Cheney's poltical agenda.
Where is this report? I missed that one. Please cite.
You are doing what was required - provide supporting facts. Now you are indignant because forced to do what your were required? I am amused ... an emotion.
Actually, I had first asked you to back up your claim that the finding of WMDs was a hoax. You have yet to post any of you "hoax" facts.
Let's see... since you are too lazy to find any more information...
New York Time May 18, 2004
NERVE AGENT
Army Discovers Old Iraqi Shell Holding Sarin, Illicit Weapon
By DEXTER FILKINS
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 17 — American commanders said Monday that they discovered an Iraqi artillery shell last week containing sarin, one of the deadly nerve agents that Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed before the war began last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/international/middleeast/18SARI.html?ei=5007&en=b8a2a5c170531d86&ex=1400212800&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=
Is Sarin used to wash clothes in? I guess that's the new way to do laundry - wash it in an artillery shell filled with Sarin. Because every one knows that artillery shells containing Sarin can be used for things other than a weapon.
Wait - I thought you said all of these artillery shells filled with Sarin were destroyed by Saddam years before the invasion? Than how can it be?
BTW, most people don't need someone else to google news for things that were reported widely on. If this was some random news event that only one newspaper reported on... well, than I don't mind finding it for you. But dozens of newspapers (hundreds if you count international media), mainstream new sources, have reported multiple times on findings of either actual weapons, or the chemicals used to produce them. Just because you choose to tune out the news that does not support your point of view does not negate your responsibility as a spewer of facts (and spewer of spin) to know about the real actual facts.
Actually, I had first asked you to back up your claim that the finding of WMDs was a hoax. You have yet to post any of you "hoax" facts.
:brikwall:
I'm telling you it is useless. TW finds it completely unnecessary to provide support for his arguments once he "knows" them to be true. It is your job to go find the info he knows to prove you are enlightened.
I know... but I have to occasionally defend myself against the all knowing but doesn't need to back up his statements with facts tw.
I never claimed to be enlightened ... :)
:brikwall:
I'm telling you it is useless. TW finds it completely unnecessary to provide support for his arguments once he "knows" them to be true. It is your job to go find the info he knows to prove you are enlightened.
The classic and well documented approach to a Conspiracy Theorist argument...
The classic and well documented approach to a Conspiracy Theorist argument...
Did someone in here call me? :tinfoil: