Infallible Satire
11-04-2005, 22:37
Just recently, "tens of thousands" of anti-American protesters, marched on Baghdad. And that was just the largest one so far. There are many, many more planned.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/
There were also numerous polls which show the Iraqi citizens do not agree with the Iraqi war.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
47 percent said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified.
52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.
If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.
33 percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm
46 percent said it had done more harm than good.
42 percent said Iraq was better off.
39 percent said it was worse off because of the war.
54 percent said conditions for creating peace and stability had worsened in the three months before they were questioned for the poll.
25 percent said conditions improved during that time before the upsurge in violence.
92 percent said attacks against Iraqi police could not be justified.
52 percent said the ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was not justified.
47 percent said it could be justified.
57 percent want the US and British forces to leave immediately.
36 percent said troops should stay longer.
69 percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.
42 percent said they held an unfavorable opinion of L. Paul Bremer
31 percent rated him favorably.
44 percent gave Bush a very unfavorable rating.
11 percent somewhat unfavorable.
24 percent said they held a favorable opinion of the U.S. president.
29 percent said US troops had conducted themselves very badly.
29 percent said fairly badly
24 percent chose fairly well.
10 percent said troops had acted very well.
67 percent said troops were not trying at all to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed in exchanges of gunfire.
18 percent said the Americans were trying only a little.
11 percent said they were trying a lot.
60 percent of those surveyed said U.S. soldiers sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqis during home searches.
29 percent said that the troops did not.
41 percent said the troops were trying only a little to restore of basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.
44 percent said they were not trying at all.
71 percent surveyed said they saw troops mostly as occupiers. (That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included.)
19 percent said they viewed them as liberators.
Asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.
In the multiethnic Baghdad area, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable.Ethically-speaking, if we invaded Iraq because he had WMDs, then we should've done it, with or without anyone's consent (including the Iraqi people). But Conservatives and Bush seem to be claiming that the real reason we went to war, was for Iraqi freedom, justifying all of the killing and prison torture, by talking about what a brutal dictator Hussein was.
I wish I still had the list of countries citing U.S. human rights abuses, as it would be very prudent to see here. Because now, it's clear, that not only are China, France, Italy, and the U.N. saying we have human rights abuses, but even the Iraqi people want us out. It's obvious they didn't want or need to be 'saved---well, no. Hussein was brutal, and they wanted to be free, but not at the cost of bombs being dropped on infants, or innocent people being tortured. Hussein only oppressed those that opposed him, politically, and allowed people to flourish with a relative amount of prosperity.
And the fact is-according what they've told us about the intelligence, it was possible that Hussein had WMDs. Well, clearly, it wasn't a strong enough case to act on. The U.N. didn't think so and neither did most of the world, as there were immense anti-war protests, after we attacked Iraq. And that's one thing that's important to remember, is the U.N. - If "the intelligence was correct", then why didn't the U.N. support us? Why didn't we have any major countries back us?
Because the intelligence was fraudulent, the case for WMDs was poor, and as we see now, the Iraqi people did not want or need to be saved. It's one thing if many countries didn't agree with you, but almost no major countries agreed with the U.S., particularly civilians. The countries in our "coalition" were mostly of poor, third-world nations, looking to gain foreign aid by being our ally. This was obvious from the countries which would only send a meager couple hundred people! No, the war was not justified.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/
There were also numerous polls which show the Iraqi citizens do not agree with the Iraqi war.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
47 percent said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified.
52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.
If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.
33 percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm
46 percent said it had done more harm than good.
42 percent said Iraq was better off.
39 percent said it was worse off because of the war.
54 percent said conditions for creating peace and stability had worsened in the three months before they were questioned for the poll.
25 percent said conditions improved during that time before the upsurge in violence.
92 percent said attacks against Iraqi police could not be justified.
52 percent said the ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was not justified.
47 percent said it could be justified.
57 percent want the US and British forces to leave immediately.
36 percent said troops should stay longer.
69 percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.
42 percent said they held an unfavorable opinion of L. Paul Bremer
31 percent rated him favorably.
44 percent gave Bush a very unfavorable rating.
11 percent somewhat unfavorable.
24 percent said they held a favorable opinion of the U.S. president.
29 percent said US troops had conducted themselves very badly.
29 percent said fairly badly
24 percent chose fairly well.
10 percent said troops had acted very well.
67 percent said troops were not trying at all to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed in exchanges of gunfire.
18 percent said the Americans were trying only a little.
11 percent said they were trying a lot.
60 percent of those surveyed said U.S. soldiers sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqis during home searches.
29 percent said that the troops did not.
41 percent said the troops were trying only a little to restore of basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.
44 percent said they were not trying at all.
71 percent surveyed said they saw troops mostly as occupiers. (That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included.)
19 percent said they viewed them as liberators.
Asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.
In the multiethnic Baghdad area, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable.Ethically-speaking, if we invaded Iraq because he had WMDs, then we should've done it, with or without anyone's consent (including the Iraqi people). But Conservatives and Bush seem to be claiming that the real reason we went to war, was for Iraqi freedom, justifying all of the killing and prison torture, by talking about what a brutal dictator Hussein was.
I wish I still had the list of countries citing U.S. human rights abuses, as it would be very prudent to see here. Because now, it's clear, that not only are China, France, Italy, and the U.N. saying we have human rights abuses, but even the Iraqi people want us out. It's obvious they didn't want or need to be 'saved---well, no. Hussein was brutal, and they wanted to be free, but not at the cost of bombs being dropped on infants, or innocent people being tortured. Hussein only oppressed those that opposed him, politically, and allowed people to flourish with a relative amount of prosperity.
And the fact is-according what they've told us about the intelligence, it was possible that Hussein had WMDs. Well, clearly, it wasn't a strong enough case to act on. The U.N. didn't think so and neither did most of the world, as there were immense anti-war protests, after we attacked Iraq. And that's one thing that's important to remember, is the U.N. - If "the intelligence was correct", then why didn't the U.N. support us? Why didn't we have any major countries back us?
Because the intelligence was fraudulent, the case for WMDs was poor, and as we see now, the Iraqi people did not want or need to be saved. It's one thing if many countries didn't agree with you, but almost no major countries agreed with the U.S., particularly civilians. The countries in our "coalition" were mostly of poor, third-world nations, looking to gain foreign aid by being our ally. This was obvious from the countries which would only send a meager couple hundred people! No, the war was not justified.