Irony and more irony

[ACPlayer]

The poll, conducted by Zogby International for the Washington-based Arab American Institute (AAI), found that if current opinions hold through November, when the election takes place, Bush could suffer a net loss of one-third (170,000) of Arab-American votes in the four states compared with the 2000 elections, when he won a solid plurality of those votes.

Such a loss could prove decisive in the four states - Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania - where Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry are focusing much of their early campaign efforts precisely because the races are expected to be extremely close.



Bush won a plurality of Arab American Votes in 2000 and turned around and screwed those who voted for him.

Bush went to Iraq to rescue the Arab societies in the middle east from -- I dont know what yet (does he?) -- Arab American are unlikely to thank him with their votes in 2004.

Arab American Voting (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD30Aa03.html)

[MMMMMM]

Any Arabs (American or otherwise) who think dethroning Saddam wasn't a good thing for the Iraqi people are either his cronies or are daft. Any Americans who think dethroning Saddam wasn't a good thing for the Iraqi people are even dafter, since they obviously aren't his cronies.

ACPlayer, I take it you must hark to the latter category because you seem to be purveying the opinion that Bush somehow "screwed" the Arab American voters. Nothing could be further from reality, unless we live in topsy-turvy land.

[ACPlayer]

Well, we can go through this again:

Overthrowing Saddam has not benefited the US directly. He was not a threat to us and was certainly not the biggest threat around. That is, in my mind an absolute.

It certainly appears that both the Iraqi's and the Arabs are not exactly thrilled with what has happened in Iraq. I cant speak for them because I dont know any of them, but I can read the reports and news coming out of there. You on the other hand feel free to speak for the Arab population and claim that they are better off today then before, without any facts.

Lastly, Arab Americans have been subjected to varous injustices from the DOJ, who's job should be to uphold the constitution and protect the minority population. This is the main reason why they are not likely to vote for Bush and whoever is the VP candidate.

[superleeds]

MMMMM,

Maybe they are fed up with the hypocracy that is the US foreign policy.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant speak for them because I dont know any of them, but I can read the reports and news coming out of there. You on the other hand feel free to speak for the Arab population and claim that they are better off today then before, without any facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the most recent poll by ABC, which shows that which has been reported for months: that most Iraqis are better off than before the war, that most are in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that more favor democracy than any other form of government. These poll results echo other poll results I have read over the last 6 months. And of course the Iraqis aren't exactly "thrilled", but overall they are fairly supportive. "Thrilled" isn't the definition of success or positive change, either...even in this country.

Also, I don't agree with you that Arab Americans have been subjected to various injustices by the DOJ, unless maybe you are referring to the isolated cases of Padilla and Hamdi (I presume you are instead talking about Arab Americans in general).

Anyway, here are some poll results and excerpts.

(excerpt from ABCNEWS)
A Better Life
Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results

Analysis
By Gary Langer

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

Worries exist — locally about joblessness, nationally about security — boosting desires for a "single strong leader," at least in the short term. Yet the first media-sponsored national public opinion poll in Iraq also finds a strikingly optimistic people, expressing growing interest in politics, broad rejection of political violence, rising trust in the Iraqi police and army and preference for an inclusive and democratic government.

More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated....
...

How Iraqis See Their Lives Overall
How things are going today:

----------All-----North---South---Central--Baghdad
Good----70%---85%-----65%-----70%------67%
Bad-----29------14--------34-------28---------32

Compared to a year ago, before the war:
Better---56%----70%----63%-----54%------46%
Same----23------15-------21-------22---------31
Worse---19------13-------13-------23---------23

How they'll be a year from now:
Better---71%----83%----74%----70%--------63%
Same-----9--------4--------6--------10----------16
Worse----7--------1--------4---------9----------10

...

In another question, without a time frame mentioned, democracy wins more support than two other options — a strong leader, but one who rules "for life"; or an Islamic state. Forty-nine percent choose democracy, 28 percent a "strong leader" and 21 percent an Islamic state.

Preferred Political System

Democracy------------------49%
Strong leader "for life"---28%
Islamic state--------------21%

(end excerpt)

[MMMMMM]

Better hypocrisy than tyranny

[andyfox]

Hypocisy is the handmaiden of tyranny. (You may quote me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[BadBoyBenny]

What country has a foreign policy that is not hypocritical and self serving?

[superleeds]

How many people did this great bastion of hard hitting unbiased journalism ask?

[superleeds]

Oh that's OK then

[MMMMMM]

Sorry, I forgot to post the link. Also I excerpted only portions of the article because it was hell trying to line up the columns in the charts properly...the software somehow mishmashed everything out of line and I had to re-align it manually. There are more charts in the link, some further breakdowns of results, etc. but I think I captured the most important parts. Anyway, answer to your question, and link, below.


(excerpt)
[b]These results are from an ABCNEWS poll conducted among a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country from Feb. 9-28. Part of ABC's weeklong series, Iraq: Where Things Stand, marking the first anniversary of the war, the poll was co-sponsored with ABC by the German broadcasting network ARD, the BBC and the NHK in Japan, with sampling and field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England.

The poll finds that 78 percent of Iraqis reject violence against coalition forces, although 17 percent — a sixth of the population — call such attacks "acceptable." One percent, for comparison, call it acceptable to attack members of the new Iraqi police.[b](end excerpt)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
it was hell trying to line up the columns in the charts properly...the software somehow mishmashed everything out of line and I had to re-align it manually.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/mad.gif Yeah, I've had that. It's a right pain /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, answer to your question, and link, below.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank You

[ QUOTE ]
poll conducted among a random, representative sample

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. (May just be the cynic in me tho)

[ QUOTE ]
2,737 Iraqis

[/ QUOTE ]

Well lets just say I'm pretty underwhelmed

[MMMMMM]

.

Why doesn't a poll involving 2,700 + samplings strike you as significant? Many polls are routinely conducted with fewer people and the margins of error are usually fairly slim. Also, the major news services, if anything, have reported mostly the negatives out of Iraq on a day-to-day basis. So this poll might well surprise the doom and gloomers, or the ones who mostly just catch the daily reporting which, again, is pretty heavily weighted towards the negative.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't a poll involving 2,700 + samplings strike you as significant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Iraq is a country of almost 25 Million. If you had 25M hands in you Pokertracker would you base your ability on a random selection of just 0.01% of the hands. Also Iraq is an extremely dangourous place with many no go areas and so I don't believe there interviews were random by any means.

[ QUOTE ]
Many polls are routinely conducted with fewer people and the margins of error are usually fairly slim

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule I am very sceptical of polls for this reason

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the major news services, if anything, have reported mostly the negatives out of Iraq on a day-to-day basis. So this poll might well surprise the doom and gloomers, or the ones who mostly just catch the daily reporting which, again, is pretty heavily weighted towards the negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Most reports (and especially the snappy attention grabbing stuff on TV which lasts about 2 minutes until they move on), is right wing. Advertisers don't like bad news so TV does it best to make everyone wear rose tinted spectacles.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I recall many polls in the US being conducted with fewer respondents--even from the most well-known polling sources. If you think their claimed margins of error are way off, I guess that's another topic.


[ QUOTE ]
...Most reports (and especially the snappy attention grabbing stuff on TV which lasts about 2 minutes until they move on), is right wing. Advertisers don't like bad news so TV does it best to make everyone wear rose tinted spectacles.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Haven't we all been hearing primarily about all the problems in Iraq for months? "A quagmire" is a common phrase these days.

[superleeds]

When they start showing the body bags or Iraqi children who have just had limbs blown off because they are just collateral damage as well as these 'polls', then they will be doing their job. The propaganda they spew nightly under the discription 'news' is surely in violation of some trade discription act.

[MMMMMM]

That still doesn't address the discussion of whether the poll is likely to be accurate. In my opinion it probably is pretty accurate and I don't see any reason to think otherwise.

[ACPlayer]

The nice thing about polls is you can pick and choose what you want:

[ QUOTE ]
46 percent said they believed the invasion and occupation had done more harm than good, compared with only 33 percent who said they had done more good than harm

74 percent said they had felt afraid to go outside their home at night for safety reasons

71 percent of the Iraqi respondents said they considered coalition forces mostly as "occupiers" rather than liberators (19 percent). That rose to an overwhelming 81 percent when respondents from the Kurdish areas were excluded from the sample.

asked whether conditions for "peace and stability" had improved or worsened over the three months before the survey, 25 percent said they had improved, while 54 percent said they had become worse. Nineteen percent said there was no change.



[/ QUOTE ]

And these numbers were all from before Fallujah and Najaf etc. Wonder how that impacted impressions.

Poll (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE01Ak01.html)

[ThaSaltCracka]

there is absolutely no reason to doubt the authenticity or accuracey of this poll. Almost every major polling company follows this formula, because it is accurate and quick. George Gallup was the man who developed this pioneering tactic. I read an article for one of my classes on George Gallup, here are some excerpts
"A New Technique for Objective Methods for Measuring Reader Interest in Newspapers" was the way, and the title of Gallup's Ph.D. thesis at Iowa. Working with the Des Moines Register and Tribune and the two-hundred-year-old statistical theory probabilities of the Swiss mathematician Jakob Bernoulli, Gallup developed "sampling" techniques. You didn't have to talk to everybody, he said, as long as you randomly selected interviews according to a sampling plan that took into account whatever diversity was relevant in the universe of potential respondents geographic, ethnic, economic.
Although not everybody understood or believed then-or now-this intellectual invention was a big deal. GUESSWORK ELIMINATED IN NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING READER INTEREST was the lead headline of the February 8, 1930, issue of the newspaper industry's trade journal, Editor & Publisher, There was a photograph of a big, stolid midwesterner above the caption: GEORGE H. GALLUP, INSTRUCTOR, U. OF IOWA.

The instructor tried to explain what he was talking about and doing. "Suppose there are seven thousand white beans and three thousand black beans well churned in a barrel," he said then, and again more than fifty-two years later as We walked together near his office in Princeton, New Jersey. "If you scoop out one hundred of them, you'll get approximately seventy white beans and thirty black in your hand, and the range of your possible error can be computed mathematically. As long as the barrel contains many more beans than your handful, the proportion will remain within that margin of error nine hundred ninety-seven times out of one thousand."

I would provide the link, but its not accessable by anyone, unless you are a student.

Superleeds, if you still think random samples aren't accurate, then you should take a stats class, and if you still don't buy it, write a book and explain to the rest of the world why were wrong.
Or better yet, why don't you go knock on every door of every person in the entire world, that way you could have everyones opinion. It would probably only take you 25 years or so, not to long though. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[superleeds]

1. Questions are always biased or so woolly they have little real value. People who answer polls have almost always shown a preference to do so, i.e. they don't mind taking time out of their day to answer many innane questions and therefore their answers are tainted by some bent, (political, religious etc)

2. See AC's reply to MMMMM earlier in this thread. Statistics can show many things and the interpertation can be distorted and/or reinenforced depending on the compilers agenda.

3. Truly random samples can give a reasonably fair representation on smallish numbers I grant you. I do however have a problem with how random a poll can be in a wartorn country with a recent history of absolut suppression such as Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Superleeds, if you still think random samples aren't accurate, then you should take a stats class, and if you still don't buy it, write a book and explain to the rest of the world why were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did quite well at Statistics at school, but admittedly it was quite a rudimentary class and many years ago. If I was to write a book I hope I would pick a far more interesting subject /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Or better yet, why don't you go knock on every door of every person in the entire world, that way you could have everyones opinion. It would probably only take you 25 years or so, not to long though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that after 25 years some of the views of the initial doors I knocked on may of changed. My views now are signifiantly different from those I had at 18 /images/graemlins/wink.gif
And just 25 years? A tad ambitious
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]


Overthrowing Saddam has not benefited the US directly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Iraq become a democracy with good food and water and communications, etc, has a good chance of not only bringing more stability to the Middle East but also might show the people of other similar countries that the U.S. doesn't hate them like their dictators probably tell them we do. It also gives the U.S. a base of operations if it ever needs to do other things in the Middle East. I'd say the United States can benefit immensely from all this.

Since this is about a poll, here's a poll (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=619124 &Forum=exchange&Words=marine%20want%20us%20there&M atch=And&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main=61 8175&Search=true#Post619124) posted by MMMMMM a month ago.

[ QUOTE ]

It certainly appears that both the Iraqi's and the Arabs are not exactly thrilled with what has happened in Iraq. I cant speak for them because I dont know any of them, but I can read the reports and news coming out of there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is part of an email from a United States Marine. I thought it was posted here before, but maybe not:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has
happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you.

This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper
is producing) -Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq. -Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations. -Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur. -The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster. -School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. -The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August. -The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. -100%
of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war. -Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils
are in place. -Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. -Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. -Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. -Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers. -Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever. -Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. -An interim constitution has been signed. -Girls are
allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq. -Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many many people from Iraq that want us there and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run
into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to _____, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and
very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening. The author (R.R.)is a member of the Iowa Army National Guard. Name and Battalion are being withheld for OPSEC.

[CORed]

I would not have much confidence in any public opinion poll conducted in Iraq.

Think about it. These people were ruled by Saddam Hussein. In his regime, saying anything bad about the powers that be to a stranger was to risk getting dragged off by the secret police in the middle of the night to be raped, tortured and murdered. Do you really think that the typical Iraqi is convinced that we're different? I think that a lot of Iraqis, when someone knocks on their door or calls them on the phone and asks what they think of the American occupation, are going to give what they think is the safe answer: "The Americans are wonderful. We're so glad they're here.", regardless of what they really think.

[ThaSaltCracka]

CORed,
I see your point. There has been much as to why the Iraqis aren't Leading or trying to lead their country now, because when they were under Saddam they did nothing. I think the best way to explain myself here is, imagine a child who during his entire childhood his mother did everything for him. She cooked and cleaned, imagine what that child would be like when they got older. The answer is fairly obvious.

Now as for your assertion: [ QUOTE ]
Think about it. These people were ruled by Saddam Hussein. In his regime, saying anything bad about the powers that be to a stranger was to risk getting dragged off by the secret police in the middle of the night to be raped, tortured and murdered. Do you really think that the typical Iraqi is convinced that we're different? I think that a lot of Iraqis, when someone knocks on their door or calls them on the phone and asks what they think of the American occupation, are going to give what they think is the safe answer: "The Americans are wonderful. We're so glad they're here.", regardless of what they really think.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is rediculous. Iraqis are having no problem saying what they want or feel. There have been plenty of protests and riots against the Americans by an apparent select few, so the notion that Iraqis are scared to say how they feel is absurd.

BTW, be careful of what your accusing our troops of doing. You are essentially saying are troops are acting like Saddams old secret police, I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks this with you, unless he has a bomb strapped around his chest.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Superleeds, it seems you simply don't want to believe that the average Iraqi thinks the way the poll reflects. I am sorry, but many modern polling institutes have done extensive studies on how to make their polls as impartial or unbiased as possible, so if you still think polls are always biased, I guess this discussion is a lost cause.

[ QUOTE ]
2. See AC's reply to MMMMM earlier in this thread. Statistics can show many things and the interpertation can be distorted and/or reinenforced depending on the compilers agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]
explain to me how those poll #'s can be distorted any other way than to show that most Iraqis feel better off now then they did before the war. IMO, that shows to me simply how bad things were with Saddam in power. They don't prove to me that the "coalition" is doing a good job, and the poll's results certainly doesn't validate the war to me either. The answers seem straight-forward, so whats your exact problem with them? Do you not like seeing that people feel better off over there now, or are you so bent up with anger over the U.S. that you want to see every facate of the war in Iraq fail? I am starting to lean towards the latter with you.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Truly random samples can give a reasonably fair representation on smallish numbers I grant you. I do however have a problem with how random a poll can be in a wartorn country with a recent history of absolut suppression such as Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reasonably fair is quite an understatement by you. I think they are faily accurate in fact. Polling companies have calculated the standard deviation and the confidence level of the polls so that they can confidently say the polls reflect the views of the population of Iraq.

Question for you. Are you saying that you think its simply hard right now to get an accurate poll in Iraq because of the social situation there? Do you think they could get a accurate response 5 years from now with a random sample poll? Just curious /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

I think it can be safely argued that at the moment the Bush administration does not give a hoot about democracy. Their prime focus right now is to make sure that the US remains in power today and tomorrow and then let day after tomorrow take care of itself. If it was truly about democracy then the UN can be invited in, we can give up the financial controls and put a non-American head of a multi-national political presence there. This will never happen!

So far the US has tried to find a way to put a puppet government in front of the Iraqi's and the world while maintaining financial and military control over the country. Double talk of limited sovereignity, interim governments, ruling councils etc not withstanding.

It would be nice if this was about democracy. This is about placing a gun in Arab lands and then using the gun to ensure that American interests (read oil first, Israel second) are being achieved.

Note that the Iraqi's are beginning to catch on at all levels. The governing council balked at signing an agreement allowing US troops to remain in Iraq after limited sovereignty and the new elections. The Shia leaders have been running in place with one foot for the US and the other foot outside.

Sorry that your Marine friend needs to find justification for actions that are unjustifiable by most moral standards. I sympathize with him and other Marines who think they are there for a good cause.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Superleeds, it seems you simply don't want to believe that the average Iraqi thinks the way the poll reflects. I am sorry, but many modern polling institutes have done extensive studies on how to make their polls as impartial or unbiased as possible, so if you still think polls are always biased, I guess this discussion is a lost cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so.



[ QUOTE ]
explain to me how those poll #'s can be distorted any other way than to show that most Iraqis feel better off now then they did before the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally hypothetical case and numbers.
Q. Has life improved for you since the departure of Saddam Hussein.

Yes - 48%
No - 15%
Same - 37%

Conclusion 1. Only 1 in 7 Iraqi's claimed in a poll today that life under the American occupation was worse than under Hussein

Conclusion 2. Less than half of all Iraqi's surveyed think life is better since Saddam's departure.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't prove to me that the "coalition" is doing a good job, and the poll's results certainly doesn't validate the war to me either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to hear it

[ QUOTE ]
The answers seem straight-forward, so whats your exact problem with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just a very cynical person.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not like seeing that people feel better off over there now, or are you so bent up with anger over the U.S. that you want to see every facate of the war in Iraq fail?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually supported the war initally. And if I thought that democracy was the ultimate goal of this administration I would support it now. The fact is they lied and have continued to lie about the reasons for this war and so my trust in them has been lost. They are making a huge mess and in MHO only adding to the terrorism problem.


[ QUOTE ]
Reasonably fair is quite an understatement by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Question for you. Are you saying that you think its simply hard right now to get an accurate poll in Iraq because of the social situation there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think they could get a accurate response 5 years from now with a random sample poll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. If the situation settles down and their is some stability for a few years then Yes I would have more confidence in the result. If the country is still split by different factions and their are American/British troops still keeping the peace, then No I would not.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was truly about democracy then the UN can be invited in, we can give up the financial controls and put a non-American head of a multi-national political presence there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. The U.N. is a corrupt and incapable organization. Look at the oil-for-food scandal now emerging (just as I suggested years ago on this board). Putting the U.N. in charge of Iraq at this point would only ensure the country's insecurity and pave the way for corruption at the highest levels.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was truly about democracy then the UN can be invited in, we can give up the financial controls and put a non-American head of a multi-national political presence there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. The U.N. is a corrupt and incapable organization. Look at the oil-for-food scandal now emerging (as I suggested years ago on this board). Putting the U.N. in charge of Iraq at this point would only ensure the country's insecurity and pave the way for corruption at the highest levels.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Putting the U.N. in charge of Iraq at this point would only ensure the country's insecurity and pave the way for corruption at the highest levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something the US will do far more effienctly /images/graemlins/laugh.gif








MMMMM, ITS A JOKE

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Totally hypothetical case and numbers.
Q. Has life improved for you since the departure of Saddam Hussein.

Yes - 48%
No - 15%
Same - 37%

Conclusion 1. Only 1 in 7 Iraqi's claimed in a poll today that life under the American occupation was worse than under Hussein

Conclusion 2. Less than half of all Iraqi's surveyed think life is better since Saddam's departure.

[/ QUOTE ]

The numbers are there, so I guess you can construde them how ever you want, like I said, all they tell me is that 60%(throwing out a number) of Iraqis think life is better, and nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually supported the war initally. And if I thought that democracy was the ultimate goal of this administration I would support it now. The fact is they lied and have continued to lie about the reasons for this war and so my trust in them has been lost. They are making a huge mess and in MHO only adding to the terrorism problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, even though this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
This is about placing a gun in Arab lands and then using the gun to ensure that American interests (read oil first, Israel second) are being achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is closer to the truth than any other reason that has been put forth.

[ACPlayer]

Well, the American handling of Iraq since the invasion (or is it liberation, I can not quite figure it out) has of course been stellar and totally in the interest of making Iraq a free democracy.

You are so full of it, I suggest liberal use of a laxative.

[MMMMMM]

Impossible that the UN would not do worse than the USA.

[ACPlayer]

Impossible for anyone to do worse than the botched up job in handling the hearts and minds and politics of Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

So you may think, but you haven't seen what it would now be like had the U.N. taken control.