NationStates Jolt Archive

My apologies if this has been done already, i didn't see it here.

A little ways back it came to poster/readers' attention that a perverse number of U.S. populace had been led to believe that Saddamn Hussein and al-Qaida had a particular connection that somehow qualified the invasion of Iraq. Time passes and the malady persists.
There is apparently, a deeper problem in the same vein, as evidenced from a Zogby poll of 2/28/06, as such:

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006



Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

...

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

...

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

...
Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

(2/28/2006)
Now, this far into it, either someone is pretty deliberately deceiving them, or they simply are uninformed about the issue.

I'm pretty sure this issue is one meriting some discussion.

Interesting. And scary.

Interesting. And scary.
I also recall reading back when the invasion started that Limblob had managed to procure an exclusive broadcast contract with Armed Forces Radio, or something to that effect. Two years later, "Savage" Weiner got in on it for a little while two.
I CAN'T IMAGINE any scenario where there's a connection to this poll's results :rolleyes:

That's incredibly worrying, but at least the soldiers know when they're beaten.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/zogby_troop_pol_2.html

On the Zogby poll of U.S. troops in Iraq, I need to make one point that was implicit in my comments on Wednesday a bit more explicit. While much is shrouded in secrecy, one aspect of the methodology is clear from the information that John Zogby has provided on-the-record: The survey did not involve a "random probability" sample of all American troops serving in Iraq.

The principle of random sampling is what makes a poll "scientific." To meet that standard in this case, every member of the U.S. armed services in Iraq should have had some chance of being selected (or to put it statistical terms, the probability of selection had to be either equal or known for every member of the population). As I wrote yesterday, the constraints Zogby faced in gaining access to troops at "undisclosed locations throughout Iraq" made random selection of those locations impossible.

It is also unclear -- both from information in the public domain and from what Zogby shared with me in confidence -- whether his selection procedures amounted to random probability sampling even at the undisclosed locations. I did not press Zogby for details on that process, because under the terms of our agreement I could not report the details. While I could speculate about his procedures, unfortunately, doing so would require disclosure of information I promised not to disclose.


What's really interesting is that the poll doesn't give hard numbers, only percentages.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/zogby_troop_pol_2.html




What's really interesting is that the poll doesn't give hard numbers, only percentages.
That's what polls do; they give percentages, otherwise, what's the point? Percentages are easier to remember and can be used to manipulate public views... :p

Of course they are *still* lieing to the soldiers about Iraq.
How else would they still get more of them as cannon fodder? :rolleyes:

What's really interesting is that the poll doesn't give hard numbers, only percentages.
Well, what we read is not the poll, just a news release on the poll. They usually do that to spark interest and they can give you later all the numbers, methodology, etc. for a price. That's how they make money.

They must have started linking Saddam and 9/11 after I got out, because I went to Iraq in April '03 and I'd never heard anything like that when I was in. We all thought we were going to remove Saddam.

It's easier to lie to soldiers. So, yes.

My apologies if this has been done already, i didn't see it here.

A little ways back it came to poster/readers' attention that a perverse number of U.S. populace had been led to believe that Saddamn Hussein and al-Qaida had a particular connection that somehow qualified the invasion of Iraq. Time passes and the malady persists.
There is apparently, a deeper problem in the same vein, as evidenced from a Zogby poll of 2/28/06, as such:

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006



Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

...

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

...

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

...
Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

(2/28/2006)
Now, this far into it, either someone is pretty deliberately deceiving them, or they simply are uninformed about the issue.

I'm pretty sure this issue is one meriting some discussion.Shit! That explains why the soldiers always are so "Oh, we're doing good here," when they're interviewed. My God, Bush deserves to go to Hell for this.

Saddam himself was justification -- the human rights abuses in that country were terrible. That guy killed or tortured countless thousands of his own countrymen.

it's not all shits and giggles now, but at least the people had a chance to elect a new government who MIGHT represent them (and actually, the seats nearly mirror the population break-down of the country: about 30% Sunni, about 20% Kurd, about 50% Shi'a).

instead of one sociopathic Sunni giving 80% of the country hell...

Saddam himself was justification -- the human rights abuses in that country were terrible. That guy killed or tortured countless thousands of his own countrymen.

it's not all shits and giggles now, but at least the people had a chance to elect a new government who MIGHT represent them (and actually, the seats nearly mirror the population break-down of the country: about 30% Sunni, about 20% Kurd, about 50% Shi'a).

instead of one sociopathic Sunni giving 80% of the country hell...
So what? When did we become the world police?

So what? When did we become the world police?

Since 1950 when we provided the chief contribution of troops to UN forces fighting the North Koreans and Chinese.

Since 1950 when we provided the chief contribution of troops to UN forces fighting the North Koreans and Chinese.
Does that mean it's a good thing?

They must have started linking Saddam and 9/11 after I got out, because I went to Iraq in April '03 and I'd never heard anything like that when I was in. We all thought we were going to remove Saddam.
Well here's an example of later, in a fashion ... and oh yes, there's more.

"I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned." —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005

Well, what we read is not the poll, just a news release on the poll. They usually do that to spark interest and they can give you later all the numbers, methodology, etc. for a price. That's how they make money.
Actually, it's not just a news release on the poll, it's from the poll source themselves. Hence the link.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/zogby_troop_pol_2.html




What's really interesting is that the poll doesn't give hard numbers, only percentages.
What's even more really interesting is how, on that particular link you gave, was a clarifying link after the TrackBack note:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/03/zogby_troops_po.html

March 3, 2006
Zogby: Troops think Iraq was retaliation for 9/11

At Spinsanity, we wrote on the website
http://www.spinsanity.org/
and in our book
http://www.spinsanity.org/book/
about the ways that President Bush tried to link Iraq with 9/11 and imply Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda.

These tactics worked -- more than 75% of Bush supporters believed
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf (PDF)
in October 2004 that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 (20%) or gave substantial support to Al Qaeda (55%).
---

This gives a little more for Wallonochia, methinks.

Of course they are *still* lieing to the soldiers about Iraq.
How else would they still get more of them as cannon fodder? :rolleyes:
Uhm ... punch and pie?

How well is it going, then?
You might ask Shrubya ...

"Who could have possibly envisioned an erection — an election in Iraq at this point in history?" —George W. Bush, at the White House, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2005

Well, most certainly, the PNAC could have. And did. And what do you imagine they're doing with it now? Do you know where your tax dollars were being rubbed before you got your refunds (if you did)?
Of course, it has been incessantly "on the lips of all the U.S. populace" since the invasion began ...
Have you been "looking the other way" too long?
:D
:D
:D

Few people claimed that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. However most saw that he was part of the same problem.

This blog post explains it nicely.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php

This particular memo, dated March 17, 2001, comes from a brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force and requests a list of volunteers from all units under his command for suicide attackers. The memo explicitly explains the targets for these terrorist attacks, as the original translation from Joseph Shahda shows:

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

So, here we have rock-solid proof that Iraq was planning suicide attacks on America.

So, here we have rock-solid proof that Iraq was planning suicide attacks on America.

And the US has plans to invade Canada, South America, Mexico, probably much of Europe and a half dozen other countries to boot that I probably don't know off. It's called hypotethical planning. A what if scenario and the plan to operate on it.

So what if Iraq had plans for that? It certainly doesn't mean that they had anything to do with Al Qaeda or even 9/11 as is every so often spouted by the administration in the early years and is being fed to the troops today. Tell a lie enough, and people will believe it it seems.

Planning a suicide attack is different to calling for volunteers to carry out said attack.

I guess it would be like the United States sending out a memo to units based in the North telling them to prepare for a strike into Canada. I don't dount that the US has a hypothetical plan for the invasion of Canada. I do not believe though that they are anywhere close to implementing it.

The Iraq memo shows however that the Iraqi army was in the preperation phase of a plan which had been already made.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that this memo was sent 6 months before 9/11.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that this memo was sent 6 months before 9/11.

Uh huh. I hope you're not intending to call that proof of Iraq being behind 9/11. You'd be laughed at big time.

I am not, and never will, and never have.

My point is that Iraq was planning suicide attacks on the US when the Bush administration was quite isolationist (ie, before Afghanistan, and before it started to threaten Iraq).

If Iraq planned such activity after 9/11, I could understand it, if not agree. But before 9/11, Iraq had no reason to believe that the US would attack it.

As an aside, I find it quite arrogant of some of you to assume that the soldiers fighting in Iraq are somehow less intelligent than yourselves. They have access to the same information you do. Many of them are college students, or at least count college graduates amongst their peers.

What makes you think that being a soldier makes you incapable of making up your own mind?

That's incredibly worrying, but at least the soldiers know when they're beaten.
Yep. Never! :p

Well here's an example of later, in a fashion ... and oh yes, there's more.

"I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned." —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005

Hmm, they must have pushed it hard in the Stars and Stripes and the Army Times to get so many people to believe that load of horseshit.

Saddam himself was justification -- the human rights abuses in that country were terrible. That guy killed or tortured countless thousands of his own countrymen.
So, you think that it is okay for the US to spend $280+ Billion, lose 2400+ soldiers, injure 16,000+ soldiers, kill 100,000+ Iraqis, destroy much of Iraqs infastructure, anger 1 Billion+ Muslims, and piss off most of people in the western world to get ONE man?

I guess the guy must have been real important huh?

1. the 100,000 Iraqis dead figure has been discounted for months. 30,000 is a more accurate figure.

2. Regardless, the war was not to 'get' saddam. It was to remove a dangerous loon from power. As I pointed out earlier, he presided over a government that was planning suicide attacks on the US, hosted terrorist training camps, regularly used mass executions, torture, and rape as a method of supressing and policing the population.

1. the 100,000 Iraqis dead figure has been discounted for months. 30,000 is a more accurate figure.

2. Regardless, the war was not to 'get' saddam. It was to remove a dangerous loon from power. As I pointed out earlier, he presided over a government that was planning suicide attacks on the US, hosted terrorist training camps, regularly used mass executions, torture, and rape as a method of supressing and policing the population.

The bolded statements are bullshit.

Your "blog" citation proves nothing.

Moreover, there is a difference between what you cite and the mistaken belief that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

EDIT: Much of the information your source relies upon is faked information that was created by the Iraqi National Congress. Heroes in Error: How a fake general, a pliant media, and a master manipulator helped lead the United States into war. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/heroes_in_error.html)

So the murderers are being lied to? Tough shit. In my eyes they forfeited their rights when they sold their lives to the state in return for cash and college.

Most of them come from the ultra-conservative stock anyway, and would believe this shit regardless of if they were in Iraq.

They all deserve a slow painful death and I can only hope that the American public comes to understand that and begins treating the bastards like we treating them in Vietnam.

So the murderers are being lied to? Tough shit. In my eyes they forfeited their rights when they sold their lives to the state in return for cash and college.

Most of them come from the ultra-conservative stock anyway, and would believe this shit regardless of if they were in Iraq.

They all deserve a slow painful death and I can only hope that the American public comes to understand that and begins treating the bastards like we treating them in Vietnam.

Disgusting. Our soldiers do not deserve to die painful deaths merely because they signed up to serve our country.

I'm surprised at you.

Disgusting. Our soldiers do not deserve to die painful deaths merely because they signed up to serve our country.
They signed up to kill “sand niggers” and serve the state (not the country) in exchange for a college education. They are mercenaries- professional murderers. They deserve everything they get over there and so much more.
I'm surprised at you.
Why?

Of course they are bing lied to. It's the government. They never stop lieing. I don't see how that's such a hard concept for some of you to understand.

I am not, and never will, and never have.

My point is that Iraq was planning suicide attacks on the US when the Bush administration was quite isolationist (ie, before Afghanistan, and before it started to threaten Iraq).Many (including, I presume, Saddam) expected Bush to go after Iraq at some point during his term. I would be highly unsurprised if Saddam began preparation in anticipation of Bush launching assassination attempts on him. Revenge and all that.If Iraq planned such activity after 9/11, I could understand it, if not agree. But before 9/11, Iraq had no reason to believe that the US would attack it.Incorrect. See above.As an aside, I find it quite arrogant of some of you to assume that the soldiers fighting in Iraq are somehow less intelligent than yourselves. They have access to the same information you do.Potential access is not the same thing as what information comes to you, and in general, information access in Iraq tends to be spottier. See particularly - for example - the earlier comments about exclusive radio contracts.Many of them are college students, or at least count college graduates amongst their peers.

What makes you think that being a soldier makes you incapable of making up your own mind?Soldiers go through rigorous brainwashing (aka "training") to make them act and think in particular styles. While this does not prevent decision-making, it does allow for far easier deception.

This is to say nothing of the following known psychological effect: People want to believe they're doing the right thing. Soldiers in Iraq have difficulty dissociating themselves from the Iraq war, and with good reason - they're part of it.

They signed up to kill “sand niggers” and serve the state (not the country) in exchange for a college education. They are mercenaries- professional murderers. They deserve everything they get over there and so much more.

Of course!



Every poor fucker in this country who's trying to do better for himself should die a horrible painful death. Those fuckin' darkie peasants should know their place: serving me food at the McDonald's drive-through, not getting wealthy and putting their kids in the same school as my kids. The fuckers.

" If Iraq planned such activity after 9/11, I could understand it, if not agree. But before 9/11, Iraq had no reason to believe that the US would attack it."

Look up and read the Project For The New American Century.

Of course!



Every poor fucker in this country who's trying to do better for himself should die a horrible painful death. Those fuckin' darkie peasants should know their place: serving me food at the McDonald's drive-through, not getting wealthy and putting their kids in the same school as my kids. The fuckers.


Accusing me of racism? The nerve. It is our soldiers who are the racists. They see foreigners as having less value than Americans, especially brown foreigners.

You don’t ever deserve to be paid for taking the life of another human being, ever.

Here's the theory I heard. Make of it what you will.

Most, if not all, deals/purchases of oil by a country are done in $US. So a country buys dollars from USA, then uses them to purchase oil. This is vast income for USA, maybe as much as a third of income.

So Saddam said, "Listen up, here's an idea, how about we start dealing in oil for Euros?"

What do you think that would do to the USA economy if half the sales were done in Euros? USA would go the way of Russia! Get rid of Saddam.

Here's the thing: Iran DID open an oil for euroes exchange last month (the period 20-26 march). So it's done. No wonder the USA is pushing the new version of WMD on Iran.

Only problem is USA is caught up in Iraq and Afganistan and commited to step in if China tries to aquire Taiwan.

So what can it do about Iran. And just as importantly, what will happen if it just allows the rest of the world to deal extensively in euros?

Here's the theory I heard. Make of it what you will.

Most, if not all, deals/purchases of oil by a country are done in $US. So a country buys dollars from USA, then uses them to purchase oil. This is vast income for USA, maybe as much as a third of income.

So Saddam said, "Listen up, here's an idea, how about we start dealing in oil for Euros?"

What do you think that would do to the USA economy if half the sales were done in Euros? USA would go the way of Russia! Get rid of Saddam.

Here's the thing: Iran DID open an oil for euroes exchange last month (the period 20-26 march). So it's done. No wonder the USA is pushing the new version of WMD on Iran.

Only problem is USA is caught up in Iraq and Afganistan and commited to step in if China tries to aquire Taiwan.

So what can it do about Iran. And just as importantly, what will happen if it just allows the rest of the world to deal extensively in euros?

Ding ding ding! This guy knows the score.

Accusing me of racism? The nerve. It is our soldiers who are the racists. They see foreigners as having less value than Americans, especially brown foreigners.

You don’t ever deserve to be paid for taking the life of another human being, ever.

Some of our soldiers may be racist, just as some of our civilians are, but not all of our soldiers are racist. That is simply ridiculous and offensive.

They did not sign up "to kill sand niggers." Perhaps some did. But not all. Most signed up to serve their country and/or get an education and/or to feed their family.

Actually, professionalism in the military should be encouraged. Freedom is well served by a professional military that understands the limits of its authority and leaves political decisions to the civilian authorities. We are also better off with an all volunteer force than would by a draft.

And, yes, your flat out hatred for anyone that has joined the military is sickening.

Here's the theory I heard. Make of it what you will.

Most, if not all, deals/purchases of oil by a country are done in $US. So a country buys dollars from USA, then uses them to purchase oil. This is vast income for USA, maybe as much as a third of income.

So Saddam said, "Listen up, here's an idea, how about we start dealing in oil for Euros?"

What do you think that would do to the USA economy if half the sales were done in Euros? USA would go the way of Russia! Get rid of Saddam.

Here's the thing: Iran DID open an oil for euroes exchange last month (the period 20-26 march). So it's done. No wonder the USA is pushing the new version of WMD on Iran.

Only problem is USA is caught up in Iraq and Afganistan and commited to step in if China tries to aquire Taiwan.

So what can it do about Iran. And just as importantly, what will happen if it just allows the rest of the world to deal extensively in euros?

This is absurd.

Just for starters a third of US GNP is based on dollars trading? I think not.

And it isn't the US that is taking the lead on stopping nuclear weapons development in Iran. Arguably the US should have been doing more. (And I don't mean militarily.)

Accusing me of racism? The nerve. It is our soldiers who are the racists. They see foreigners as having less value than Americans, especially brown foreigners.

You don’t ever deserve to be paid for taking the life of another human being, ever.

If you erase the word 'darkie' then you'd simply be 'class-ist'. Not just racist.

And given that most of our soldiers are from minorities and are poor... yeah. You're pretty much racist and class-ist.

Actually, professionalism in the military should be encouraged. Freedom is well served by a professional military that understands the limits of its authority and leaves political decisions to the civilian authorities. We are also better off with an all volunteer force than would by a draft.
What? A large standing army has been this nation’s greatest threat to freedom.
If you erase the word 'darkie' then you'd simply be 'class-ist'. Not just racist.

And given that most of our soldiers are from minorities and are poor... yeah. You're pretty much racist and class-ist.
Racism is determined by intent of an action or statement, not by the action or statement itself.

I’ll admit to despising the lower classes, though. Not only because they fill the ranks of our military, but because they commit most major crimes, tend to be religious on some level, are by and large intellectually vacuous and seem to want nothing more than my money.
If not for the scraps we throw them, they’d probably start another Bolshevik revolution.

Some of our soldiers may be racist, just as some of our civilians are, but not all of our soldiers are racist. That is simply ridiculous and offensive.

They did not sign up "to kill sand niggers." Perhaps some did. But not all. Most signed up to serve their country and/or get an education and/or to feed their family.

Actually, professionalism in the military should be encouraged. Freedom is well served by a professional military that understands the limits of its authority and leaves political decisions to the civilian authorities. We are also better off with an all volunteer force than would by a draft.

And, yes, your flat out hatred for anyone that has joined the military is sickening.
In addition, many of the US soldiers currently in Iraq did not sign up to kill anyone at all. They joined the National Guard to defend their own country in case of an attack. Now they've been shipped off to prosecute an offensive war in a whole different country, leaving their own with weakened defenses.

<snip>

I’ll admit to despising the lower classes, though. Not only because they fill the ranks of our military, but because they commit most major crimes, tend to be religious on some level, are by and large intellectually vacuous and seem to want nothing more than my money.
If not for the scraps we throw them, they’d probably start another Bolshevik revolution.
J.P. Morgan! We all thought you were dead. Where have you been hiding, under Dick Cheney's desk in his old Halliburton office?

J.P. Morgan! We all thought you were dead. Where have you been hiding, under Dick Cheney's desk in his old Halliburton office?
Please, don’t lump me in with those corporate person-hood supporters. Those monstrosities need to be tempered just as much as the Proles.

Personally, I think it's amazing that anyone believes that soldiers don't talk to family, friends, or watch CNN. :rolleyes:

Everybody is being lied to about Iraq. Everybody.

Wow. I find it amazing how arrogant all of you are. Do you really believe that the second sometimes third hand info that you get and therefore that you believe is right is the only possible thing that is going on? Undelia- explain how the large standing military has been a threat to the U.S.. Also, do you really think that all we do is kill? Have you ever even seen what goes on, what we do? The easy answer is no. SOP states that we kill only to defend ourselves when completing primary objectives or in the defense of iraqi civilians or U.S. forces. Everyone is making rash assumptions about the survey when in fact, you have no idea even what the ?'s were. For all you know, they could have been asked to choose which reason is most correct faced w/ one bad choice and one extremely bad choice.

Personally, I think it's amazing that anyone believes that soldiers don't talk to family, friends, or watch CNN. :rolleyes:

Of course, a majority of the US think Saddam was behind 9/11. So it isn't just the military population that is mistaken.

It's amazing how easy it is for people to be informed and yet how uninformed they are.

Undelia- explain how the large standing military has been a threat to the U.S.
They area a tool of the oppressive government ant their corporate backers.
Also, do you really think that all we do is kill?
Seems that way.
SOP states that we kill only to defend ourselves when completing primary objectives or in the defense of iraqi civilians or U.S. forces.
Faluja?

" If Iraq planned such activity after 9/11, I could understand it, if not agree. But before 9/11, Iraq had no reason to believe that the US would attack it."

Look up and read the Project For The New American Century.
Thank you. *bows*
Further, read the signatories to the PNAC charter.
I've posted at length about this before, and if tasked, perhaps again.

Wow. I find it amazing how arrogant all of you are. Do you really believe that the second sometimes third hand info that you get and therefore that you believe is right is the only possible thing that is going on? Undelia- explain how the large standing military has been a threat to the U.S.. Also, do you really think that all we do is kill? Have you ever even seen what goes on, what we do? The easy answer is no. SOP states that we kill only to defend ourselves when completing primary objectives or in the defense of iraqi civilians or U.S. forces. Everyone is making rash assumptions about the survey when in fact, you have no idea even what the ?'s were. For all you know, they could have been asked to choose which reason is most correct faced w/ one bad choice and one extremely bad choice.

It is arrogant to believe that the troops might be as or more misinformed about current events as the average American?

It is arrogant to believe a poll from a reputable pollster might be accurate rather than ridiculously biased?

Meethinks you just don't like the poll results.

Everybody is being lied to about Iraq. Everybody.
Are you lying about it, with that statement? :confused:
Yer gettin' all Frater Perdurabo-ish on me, Slack master.

They area a tool of the oppressive government ant their corporate backers.

We've got a live one. Take 'im in.

I think, perhaps, if this government were as oppressive as you claim it is, that you would probably be in Gitmo. Or in a CIA-run prison somewhere in Eastern Europe. Unless you're a program designed by the FBI to weed out dissenters and defeatists....

Seems that way.

Not everything is as it seems.

Faluja?

The Iraqis probably shot first.

They area a tool of the oppressive government ant their corporate backers.
Wow
Seems that way.
Then you better check your sources
Faluja?
In defense of those civilians who were being killed by those terrorists/insurgents who were using it as a base of operations.

It is arrogant to believe that the troops might be as or more misinformed about current events as the average American?

It is arrogant to believe a poll might be accurate rather than ridiculously biased?

Meethinks you just don't like the poll results.

No, but it is arrogant to take the poll as accuracte, see the results, and believe that U.S. military personnel are being brainwashed b/c their views don't line up w/ the twisted story that you are fed.

In defense of those civilians who were being killed by those terrorists/insurgents who were using it as a base of operations.
And the civilians that died in the American attack? I guess it was just a sacrifice they were willing to make, eh?

Everyone is making rash assumptions about the survey when in fact, you have no idea even what the ?'s were. For all you know, they could have been asked to choose which reason is most correct faced w/ one bad choice and one extremely bad choice.
This is where you are completely and utterly wrong. I know. And if Ravenshrike had bothered to read further, he'd know. Perhaps he did and didn't like the conclusion he came to, somewhat as The Cat-Tribe suggests of your attitude.
The one making themselves out to be ignorant is you here, and worse, you're doing the kettle-blacking on top of it. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Much of the information your source relies upon is faked information that was created by the Iraqi National Congress. Heroes in Error: How a fake general, a pliant media, and a master manipulator helped lead the United States into war. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/heroes_in_error.html)
Wooo, tasty ref. *bows*

No, but it is arrogant to take the poll as accuracte, see the results, and believe that U.S. military personnel are being brainwashed b/c their views don't line up w/ the twisted story that you are fed.

The twisted story fed to us by Bush, Cheney, and the 9/11 Commission (and pratically every reputable source on the planet)?

Grow up. We know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply misinformed.

BTW, which is it -- are you saying the poll isn't accurate or that the troops are right in thinking that the war is retaliation for 9/11? Hmmm?

Here is a good article that describes the demographics of our military:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm


Some excerpts:

The constant increase in the recruit/population ratio contradicts the assertion that military recruiting targets youth in inner cities. In fact, entirely urban areas are the area most underrepresented among recruits. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented.


In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a “Southern military tradition” in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population

The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on terrorism began, as did the proportion of highly educated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.



The theory that the US military is a bunch of racist, ignorant hicks is totally wrong. The theory that the military is composed primarily of poor minorities who joined to escape the inner city is also equally false.

And the civilians that died? I guess it was just a sacrifice they were willing to make, eh?

i believe about 2% of the iraqi civilian population stayed. Of those 2%, i believe reliable sources say 600-1000 civilians died. Not much. In addition, i have read reports that say that of the 2% that stayed, 92% were forced by terrorist/insurgent forces. Are you advising that we allow them to take human hostages in order to carry out more killing? That is a sure path to victory.:rolleyes:

Are you lying about it, with that statement? :confused:
Yer gettin' all Frater Perdurabo-ish on me, Slack master.
Well, don't get me started - I mean, everybody has been lied to since before birth... I hardly think anybody helping perpetuate the Conspiracy is going to start telling truths anytime soon. The motivations of the Pinks are as plain to see as a dog's wagging erection.

And the civilians that died in the American attack? I guess it was just a sacrifice they were willing to make, eh?

Shit happens in war. There's nothing that can be done about it. Saying that civvies died won't bring them back from the dead, it won't fix the wrongs already committed, but it might keep them from happening again.

Oh, and it takes two to tango. If the insurgents had cleared out before the Marines and Army had shown up, no civilians would have died. There wouldn't have been a battle -- And no American soldiers would have died, either. (And, I might add, most civilians killed thus far in Iraq have been killed by their fellow Iraqis.)

Ding ding ding! This guy knows the score.
Seconded. IIRC i've heard a version similar to this a back in '04, with a few less/other details.

Well, don't get me started - I mean, everybody has been lied to since before birth... I hardly think anybody helping perpetuate the Conspiracy is going to start telling truths anytime soon. The motivations of the Pinks are as plain to see as a dog's wagging erection.
OF course, you read the first page, i take it? ;)

BTW, which is it -- are you saying the poll isn't accurate or that the troops are right in thinking that the war is retaliation for 9/11? Hmmm?

Well i obviously don't think that they are right(assuming that there was no other factor invovled in the poll). However, it could be construed that it was in some ways a fight against radical islam. We went in to overthrow saddam and start a new democracy and falsely(sorta) to take care of their WMD. Starting a new democracy, according to many middle east experts, could spark a democratic revolution in the rest of the muslim world. In a democracy, there is no harboring of al-qaeda. A stretch but at least its a justification.

OF course, you read the first page, i take it? ;)
You took correctly.

Well i obviously don't think that they are right(assuming that there was no other factor invovled in the poll). However, it could be construed that it was in some ways a fight against radical islam. We went in to overthrow saddam and start a new democracy and falsely(sorta) to take care of their WMD. Starting a new democracy, according to many middle east experts, could spark a democratic revolution in the rest of the muslim world. In a democracy, there is no harboring of al-qaeda. A stretch but at least its a justification.

Now you are confusing the poll results with a justification for the war. You are also confusing justifications that might be given now with justifications that were given before the war began.

Really, relax. It is no insult to the average soldier that he/she may be so poorly informed about the causes of the war. The fault lies with our leadership.

<snip>

You win this one.

But I'll get you next time, Lhar-Gyl-Flarfh. Next time!

In addition, i have read reports that say that of the 2% that stayed, 92% were forced by terrorist/insurgent forces.

This sounds absurd to me. Show some evidence for it, please.

Starting a new democracy, according to many middle east experts, could spark a democratic revolution in the rest of the muslim world.

And a heroic revolution of the Russian proletariat would inevitably lead to left-wing revolutions in the rest of Europe, right?

(Temporarily leaving aside the fact that the US has absolutely no interest in democracy, not in the Middle East and not anywhere else where it has imperial holdings.)

Now you are confusing the poll results with a justification for the war.
The poll was on justification for the war

(Temporarily leaving aside the fact that the US has absolutely no interest in democracy, not in the Middle East and not anywhere else where it has imperial holdings.)

And could you prove that disinformation? The answe is nope. It is just what you have been told is true so you believe it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of brain washing?

What makes you think that being a soldier makes you incapable of making up your own mind?
Could perhaps be the consequences of doing so while in uniform, which three of my ex- and current military buddies all attest to.
But if that doesn't quite work, try explaining the issue of ALL the generals stepping up now that have a problem with Rummy and why it didn't happen on the ground.

The poll was on justification for the war

Among several other things, the poll was about what the troops thought was the justification for the war.

That is a different question than how the war can be justified noe or how the war was actually justified before it started.

They area a tool of the oppressive government ant their corporate backers.


Err.... what has the American military done to oppress the American peoples?

You took correctly.
Good thing too, because it seems apparent that at least ONE other incessant poster here didn't bother.

And could you prove that disinformation? The answe is nope. It is just what you have been told is true so you believe it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of brain washing?
Not jumping your sh*t here, but "gullibility" isn't "being brainwashed". The conditioning factor is the difference.

This sounds absurd to me. Show some evidence for it, please.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200581922509.asp
Not the most unbiased source but i doubt they lied w/ the 99.5 statistic. As for the # of civilian dead, those docs aren't cleared for public access but nothing says i can't cite 'em.

It is no insult to the average soldier that he/she may be so poorly informed about the causes of the war. The fault lies with our leadership.
Absitively/posolutely correct. That's the angle that the sycophant cons have been perpetrating with their "patriotism" attacks against the general populace for some time. The soldier doesn't get a say, and Turd Blossom makes sure the repubs attack anyone who questions the admin as questioning the integrity of the troops, et cetera.

Could perhaps be the consequences of doing so while in uniform, which three of my ex- and current military buddies all attest to.
But if that doesn't quite work, try explaining the issue of ALL the generals stepping up now that have a problem with Rummy and why it didn't happen on the ground.

6 generals have come out against Rumsfeld. There are over 4,300 generals in the US. I'm sure you will find a half dozen people willing to say pretty much anything in a population that size.

6 generals have come out against Rumsfeld. There are over 4,300 generals in the US. I'm sure you will find a half dozen people willing to say pretty much anything in a population that size.
Yes, i'll further clarify for you to explain why they had to wait (not that i disagree with your assessment entirely, since it's obvious there aren't 4300 generals in Iraq - that just wasn't the point.)

Absitively/posolutely correct. That's the angle that the sycophant cons have been perpetrating with their "patriotism" attacks against the general populace for some time. The soldier doesn't get a say, and Turd Blossom makes sure the repubs attack anyone who questions the admin as questioning the integrity of the troops, et cetera.
Sorry, but i take offence to being called ignorant on a subject that i know inherently more than you and have already experienced.

6 generals have come out against Rumsfeld. There are over 4,300 generals in the US. I'm sure you will find a half dozen people willing to say pretty much anything in a population that size.

Cute. That just happens to ignore who the generals were and what their roles were re Iraq, but it is clever.

And could you prove that disinformation?

Why, by a record lasting over a century. For multiple examples, see the history of US intervention in Latin America. See also current US support for dictatorships in Central Asia and in the Middle East, for the most relevant examples.

US behavior in Iraq has also been a proof, with the repeated rejections of a timetable for withdrawal despite overwhelming support from the Iraqi people, the deliberate sectarianization of the political situation (not entirely its fault), the support for unpopular thugs like Allawi, the funding of Iraqi death squads until they became inconvenient, etc.

It is absurd to believe that the US would let one of the largest oil reserves in the world fall under the control of the Iraqi population, which has no reason to like the US and plenty of reason to align with US competitors, like China, and US enemies, like Iran.

The answe is nope.

Don't make such assumptions.

It is just what you have been told is true so you believe it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of brain washing?

Um, like every other person who grew up in the US I was repeatedly indoctrinated into believing that the US was a great freedom-loving spreader of democracy and human rights, whose sole foreign policy aims were righteous benevolence.

Just as Soviet citizens were no doubt informed that the intention in Afghanistan was to righteously liberate the citizens there from vicious feudal fundamentalist oppresssion (a justification that would be repeated, with less weight due to intervening events, by another superpower choosing to invade that country.) Do you believe that, too?

Edit: And I guess you just ignored my sarcastic comment about an early version of the "domino theory," which was wrong then and is wrong now. Nevermind.

Err.... what has the American military done to oppress the American peoples?
Existed.

Sorry, but i take offence to being called ignorant on a subject that i know inherently more than you and have already experienced.
How would you know if you were ignorant or not, if you wholeheartedly endorse the information/misinformation/disinformation you were fed while abroad? I suppose you could just be willfully ignorant...

Existed.

You're oppressing me by existing.

I love your logic!

From now on, whenever someone does something that I disagree with, I'll tell them that they're oppressing me by their mere existence!

Thanks, Undelia, you deluded sumbitch!

Not jumping your sh*t here, but "gullibility" isn't "being brainwashed". The conditioning factor is the difference.

No. You see, John Walker Lindh, Noam Chomsky, and Bill Clinton kidnapped me, tied me up in a cell, and repeatedly subjected me to bad pornography intertwined with anti-American tapes until I was willing to shout "AHH! YES! AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN! JUST RELEASE ME!"

Sorry, but i take offence to being called ignorant on a subject that i know inherently more than you and have already experienced.
Prove it, grunt.
It's so sweet you get off on calling others arrogant. You should take offense in the same measure you dish it.
Provide the info on the links and then we'll start talking about what you know more about. You haven't, ergo ....


Post 50:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10811379&postcount=50
This is your first post on MY thread. Not even anything significant in body, but THE FIRST LINE is thus:

Wow. I find it amazing how arrogant all of you are.

So step off.

No. You see, John Walker Lindh, Noam Chomsky, and Bill Clinton kidnapped me, tied me up in a cell, and repeatedly subjected me to bad pornography intertwined with anti-American tapes until I was willing to shout "AHH! YES! AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN! JUST RELEASE ME!"
Well that's kinda kinky and all, but get to the sweetmeat:
is your spirit broken yet? I've got big plans, big plans. We can see your name in lights! ;)

You're oppressing me by existing.

I love your logic!

From now on, whenever someone does something that I disagree with, I'll tell them that they're oppressing me by their mere existence!

Thanks, Undelia, you deluded sumbitch!
Do you really not understand? Pitiful.

Do you really not understand? Pitiful.

You're oppressing me again!

Why, by a record lasting over a century. For multiple examples, see the history of US intervention in Latin America. See also current US support for dictatorships in Central Asia and in the Middle East, for the most relevant examples.
Not entirely true. To reference chess, you are looking at one move, not the entire picture. Supporting a dictatorship can increase and benefit its economy. History has shown that when people have more money they have more access to education. Once educated, they can see the negatives of their gov't and overthrow it.

US behavior in Iraq has also been a proof, with the repeated rejections of a timetable for withdrawal despite overwhelming support from the Iraqi people, the deliberate sectarianization of the political situation (not entirely its fault), the support for unpopular thugs like Allawi, the funding of Iraqi death squads until they became inconvenient, etc.
Withdrawaling from iraq b/c one poll found that a majority wanted it is like making an entire nation take cyanide pills b/c one poll found that the majority wanted it. It is obvious that if we withdraw, iraq becomes a power vacuum replaced by nothin but trouble. We do not support death squads. We have always vehemently denounced them and called on the iraqis to discontinue that practice.

It is absurd to believe that the US would let one of the largest oil reserves in the world fall under the control of the Iraqi population, which has no reason to like the US and plenty of reason to align with US competitors, like China, and US enemies, like Iran.
If Iraq comes out of this stronger(which i believe it will) it will have every reason to like the U.S.

Edit: And I guess you just ignored my sarcastic comment about an early version of the "domino theory," which was wrong then and is wrong now. Nevermind.
the "domino theory" never worked b/c we never got the first domino to fall. Think about it. How could a theory which is based of several victories take off when there were no such victories.

All hierarchical structure is oppression, Jerusalas. You're either oppressed or an oppressor within and subject to those systems of organization.

Sorry, but i take offence to being called ignorant on a subject that i know inherently more than you and have already experienced.

Come now. You have no basis to doubt the poll and by your own admission it shows that our troops are overwhelmingly mistaken as to why we are in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

Note: your "establishing democracy" theory was one of the options. It just wasn't one believed by most of the troops.

Not entirely true. To reference chess, you are looking at one move, not the entire picture. Supporting a dictatorship can increase and benefit its economy. History has shown that when people have more money they have more access to education. Once educated, they can see the negatives of their gov't and overthrow it.

Withdrawaling from iraq b/c one poll found that a majority wanted it is like making an entire nation take cyanide pills b/c one poll found that the majority wanted it. It is obvious that if we withdraw, iraq becomes a power vacuum replaced by nothin but trouble. We do not support death squads. We have always vehemently denounced them and called on the iraqis to discontinue that practice.

the "domino theory" never worked b/c we never got the first domino to fall. Think about it. How could a theory which is based of several victories take off when there were no such victories.
See this is a much better post than that bruised-genitalia swinging you were tossing around earlier.

Prove it, grunt.
It's so sweet you get off on calling others arrogant. You should take offense in the same measure you dish it.
Provide the info on the links and then we'll start talking about what you know more about. You haven't, ergo ....



I can't give you my sources.(man that sounds badass) Do you really want me to break into the base files to cite documents that for the most part you are not permitted to see. You have secondary and tertiary sources. I have primary sources and direct experience. Therefore i believe that i am more informed on the subject than you.

Come now. You have no basis to doubt the poll and by your own admission it shows that our troops are overwhelmingly mistaken as to why we are in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

Note: your "establishing democracy" theory was one of the options. It just wasn't one believed by most of the troops.
I don;t know what to tell you. They polled the dumbasses. I have not encountered (minus the few outliers) w/ theses views.

All hierarchical structure is oppression, Jerusalas. You're either oppressed or an oppressor within and subject to those systems of organization.

Because, as we all know, the military is the highest part of a greater hierarchy encompassing the entirety of the US.

The President, Congress, they all serve merely at the whim of the Sei-I-tai-Shogun Rumsfeld, commander of all Americans everywhere.

In strict terms, if there is a hierarchy, the military is one of the most oppressed parts of the hierarchy, being somewhat lower than the Middle Class and only slightly higher than the Lower Class.

I can't give you my sources.(man that sounds badass) Do you really want me to break into the base files to cite documents that for the most part you are not permitted to see. You have secondary and tertiary sources. I have primary sources and direct experience. Therefore i believe that i am more informed on the subject than you.

My friend Harvey has the real dope. Sorry I can't share it. He's shy.

In strict terms, if there is a hierarchy, the military is one of the most oppressed parts of the hierarchy, being somewhat lower than the Middle Class and only slightly higher than the Lower Class.
That's only in terms of economics. Military personnel naturally get more respect and therefore a slight higher level of power in swayin opinions than others(which the post you were responding to was most likely refering to).

I don;t know what to tell you. They polled the dumbasses. I have not encountered (minus the few outliers) w/ theses views.

Now who is being arrogant and dismissing the troops as "dumbasses"?

If one of us claimed the troops were dumbasses, you'd go apeshit.

Not entirely true. To reference chess, you are looking at one move, not the entire picture. Supporting a dictatorship can increase and benefit its economy. History has shown that when people have more money they have more access to education. Once educated, they can see the negatives of their gov't and overthrow it.

Except that the dictatorships in Latin America were corrupt, brutal failures. The neoliberalized "democracies" have been little better, with a few exceptions, but then again, the same people have remained in power, more or less.

Withdrawaling from iraq b/c one poll found that a majority wanted it is like making an entire nation take cyanide pills b/c one poll found that the majority wanted it. It is obvious that if we withdraw, iraq becomes a power vacuum replaced by nothin but trouble.

So democracy is conditional, is it? If we like the decision of the Iraqi people, we go with it. If we don't, well, they're ignorant Arab savages anyway. Just as in Latin America.

You are not a supporter of democracy, you are an apologist for imperial rule.

We do not support death squads. We have always vehemently denounced them and called on the iraqis to discontinue that practice.

Um, we've been building up the "security forces" from the start. The US Government is not that naive.

If Iraq comes out of this stronger(which i believe it will) it will have every reason to like the U.S.

If Iraq comes out of this stronger, it will be entirely due to the wisdom and igenuity of the Iraqi people, who would have won with the horrible hand dealt them by the US, Saddam Hussein, the former Soviet Union, and Iran. They will not forget the numerous atrocities they have been subjected to by the United States and its allies.

the "domino theory" never worked b/c we never got the first domino to fall. Think about it. How could a theory which is based of several victories take off when there were no such victories.

The Russian proletariat did revolt. But the Spartacists were crushed nevertheless.

I can't give you my sources. Do you really want me to break into the base files to cite documents that for the most part you are not permitted to see.Oh, the Corneliu defense.
IF you had any real stature you know for a f*cking fact you wouldn't be bragging it here.
You have secondary and tertiary sources. I have primary sources and direct experience. You might have firsthand experience, but your posts are qualified as references to other polls and a few easily reproduced anecdotes and generalizations, which the repubs have and distribute in copious quantity.
Therefore i believe that i am more informed on the subject than you.
I appreciate you qualifying your belief on the matter. It's not really my job to change what you believe.
On the other hand, you don't merit my belief as well.
And to further clarify, again, my first response involving you was pointing out how neither you nor Ravenshrike mentioned what was provided in the supporting links, which was the info i referred to .. and of course, is quite obviously still available. By asserting that "no one knew" what the questions were, which IIRC i bolded, you showed that you either were being willfully neglectful and disingenuous or truly didn't know.

My friend Harvey has the real dope. Sorry I can't share it. He's shy.
Let's try and keep this one level above first graders.

That's only in terms of economics. Military personnel naturally get more respect and therefore a slight higher level of power in swayin opinions than others(which the post you were responding to was most likely refering to).

Military personnel don't get a whole hell of a lot of respect, in my expirience.

Oh, and the military answers to a civilian government. Which, as a matter of governance, puts the military below the poverty line in the alleged hierarchy.

My friend Harvey has the real dope. Sorry I can't share it. He's shy.
Ka-POW! :sniper:
:D

Let's try and keep this one level above first graders.

You two are going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, if the documents supporting your claims are above our pay-grade, in a manner of speaking.

Here is a good article that describes the demographics of our military:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

Some excerpts:

The constant increase in the recruit/population ratio contradicts the assertion that military recruiting targets youth in inner cities. In fact, entirely urban areas are the area most underrepresented among recruits. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented.

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a “Southern military tradition” in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population

The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on terrorism began, as did the proportion of highly educated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.

The theory that the US military is a bunch of racist, ignorant hicks is totally wrong. The theory that the military is composed primarily of poor minorities who joined to escape the inner city is also equally false.
Awesome news source?

http://www.heritage.org/About/images/about-FEATURE.gif

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is a unique institution—a public policy research organization, or “think tank.” We draw solutions to contemporary problems from the ideas, principles and traditions that make America great.

We are not afraid to begin our sentences with the words “We believe,” because we do believe: in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional American values.

We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat, and comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. And the policies we propose would accomplish these things.......

As conservatives, we believe the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving. And as policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and values.

Also from same "think tank":

The Heritage Foundation supports a policy of aggressive diplomacy, combined with the willingness to use force if necessary, to stave off Iran's becoming a nuclear power.

A Crisis in Slow Motion

The same week that the U.S. released reports indicating that Iran may have enough uranium for 10 nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board met to review the agency's most recent report, which warned that Iran appears determined to expand its uranium enrichment program despite its failure to meet its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Ummm, how many years will it take for Iran to actually make a nuke?

Hmmm i should perhaps TG Corny and ask if he wants a "defense" or "maneuver" named after him.

Except that the dictatorships in Latin America were corrupt, brutal failures. The neoliberalized "democracies" have been little better, with a few exceptions, but then again, the same people have remained in power, more or less.
The outcome doesn't matter. It was intent that we were discussing


So democracy is conditional, is it? If we like the decision of the Iraqi people, we go with it. If we don't, well, they're ignorant Arab savages anyway. Just as in Latin America.
Democracy should be based around an population educated in the decisions that they are making. If the polls which you were refering to were legit, then the pollees were most likely making those decisions on emotion rather than reason.

Um, we've been building up the "security forces" from the start. The US Government is not that naive.
security forces =/= death squad.



[/QUOTE]

Let's try and keep this one level above first graders.

You're the one claiming to have secret information that you can't share with us but would prove us all wrong. Convenient that.

How do we know you aren't one of the "dumbasses" you say the military is full of?

We're just supposed to trust you are right and we are wrong because you say so?

You two are going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, if the documents supporting your claims are above our pay-grade, in a manner of speaking.
They're not classified but i just can't give you the sources b/c i don't have them right next to me. The earliest i will be able to get them to you is in 6 months.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200581922509.asp
Not the most unbiased source but i doubt they lied w/ the 99.5 statistic. As for the # of civilian dead, those docs aren't cleared for public access but nothing says i can't cite 'em.

US government statistics for number of civilian dead are not trustworthy. More relevant are the Iraqi hospital reports, which as I recall had statistics at about 4000-6000 dead.

My question is not whether they lied on the 99.5 statistic; it is where they got it from, because it seems to underestimate the number remaining to me. I tentatively recall estimates of about 20%, not 0.5%, from that time. It is very questionable how they arrived at the statistic of a 4:1 ratio between "insurgents" and civilians.

They're not classified but i just can't give you the sources b/c i don't have them right next to me. The earliest i will be able to get them to you is in 6 months.

This tale just gets better. A least Harvey is handy.

You're the one claiming to have secret information that you can't share with us but would prove us all wrong. Convenient that.

How do we know you aren't one of the "dumbasses" you say the military is full of?

We're just supposed to trust you are right and we are wrong because you say so?

I didn't say it was secretive, just that i can't gain access to the docs and type them up for you right now. I never said that the military was "full" of dumbasses. For the time being no, but in 6 months yes.

They're not classified but i just can't give you the sources b/c i don't have them right next to me. The earliest i will be able to get them to you is in 6 months.

Then post when you have them.

Or send your EGA to The Cat Tribe.

Sound good?

This tale just gets better. A least Harvey is handy.
Perhaps we're wading into collateral territory (seriously, no pun intended at first, but roll with it) as far as a word worth 6 months is concerned.

This tale just gets better. A least Harvey is handy.
BTW, you havn't cited any sources as of yet. Though i'm not quite sure what we are arguing about at this moment.

Because, as we all know, the military is the highest part of a greater hierarchy encompassing the entirety of the US.

The President, Congress, they all serve merely at the whim of the Sei-I-tai-Shogun Rumsfeld, commander of all Americans everywhere.

Well, there's people out there, in places both high and low, who desperately want everybody to be a part of one form of hierarchical structure or another. To borrow from 'The Prisoner', they want everybody "pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered". But as much as it is within my grasp to say so, Jerusalas, "my life is my own."

BTW, you havn't cited any sources as of yet. Though i'm not quite sure what we are arguing about at this moment.Perhaps you're not arguing, you're reloading? ;)

BTW, you havn't cited any sources as of yet. Though i'm not quite sure what we are arguing about at this moment.

I don't know either. Your the one with the hidden info that supposedly makes the rest of us look ignorant.

If you can tell us about the documents, but just don't have them handy, you could tell us what they supposedly say.

And, yes, I've cited sources in this thread.

The outcome doesn't matter. It was intent that we were discussing

I see. So the US is always benevolent. If the results of US policy are not benevolent, they are clearly merely in error. If they support brutal, murderous, repressive dictatorships, it is clearly out of respect for the population's needs. Whatever the facts say, the US is always inherently moral, a priori.

How convenient. I think it is pretty clear who is the gullible one here.

Democracy should be based around an population educated in the decisions that they are making. If the polls which you were refering to were legit, then the pollees were most likely making those decisions on emotion rather than reason.

We clearly can't trust those ignorant, emotional Arab savages to run their own country. Perhaps we should impose another Pinochet. Surely that will start a n Arab democratic revolution.

security forces =/= death squad.

You haven't been paying very much attention, have you? The "security forces" have been dominated from the start by sectarian militias. Furthermore, they are largely under the control of the Iraqi government, which uses them for repressive purposes - exactly as would be expected of a government trying to maintain its hold on power by promoting one ethnic group over the others, without any real ideology or serious program. The US sponsored the same repression in Latin America; it was very telling that they sent John Negroponte, who did exactly that back during the 1980s, to Baghdad.

They have been talking about the "Salvador Option" for a long time; recent events have proved that they implemented it, though rather incompetently.

I don't know either. Your the one with the hidden info that supposedly makes the rest of us look ignorant.

If you can tell us about the documents, but just don't have them handy, you could tell us what they supposedly say.

And, yes, I've cited sources in this thread.
I could give you the jist of quite a few(kinda what i've been arguing the whole time). What do you want it to deal w/ since we havn't really been arguing anything lately.

If you erase the word 'darkie' then you'd simply be 'class-ist'. Not just racist.

And given that most of our soldiers are from minorities and are poor... yeah. You're pretty much racist and class-ist.

Most American soldiers are white and from middle class backrounds.

Hmm, they must have pushed it hard in the Stars and Stripes and the Army Times to get so many people to believe that load of horseshit.

Have you ever read the Stars and Stripes? Most of the news stories in it are the same ones in regular newspapers.

I could give you the jist of quite a few(kinda what i've been arguing the whole time). What do you want it to deal w/ since we havn't really been arguing anything lately.

*sigh*

What were you referring to when you first made the claim you had special information that would make us look ignorant?

I see. So the US is always benevolent. If the results of US policy are not benevolent, they are clearly merely in error. If they support brutal, murderous, repressive dictatorships, it is clearly out of respect for the population's needs. Whatever the facts say, the US is always inherently moral, a priori.
I could say the same thing about you always believing that the U.S. gov't has a hidden malicious agenda. This argument is going to go no where seeing as we are both not going to change our positions.


We clearly can't trust those ignorant, emotional Arab savages to run their own country. Perhaps we should impose another Pinochet. Surely that will start a n Arab democratic revolution.

Wow. try responding to my points next time.


You haven't been paying very much attention, have you? The "security forces" have been dominated from the start by sectarian militias. Furthermore, they are largely under the control of the Iraqi government, which uses them for repressive purposes - exactly as would be expected of a government trying to maintain its hold on power by promoting one ethnic group over the others, without any real ideology or serious program. The US sponsored the same repression in Latin America; it was very telling that they sent John Negroponte, who did exactly that back during the 1980s, to Baghdad.

They have been talking about the "Salvador Option" for a long time; recent events have proved that they implemented it, though rather incompetently.
Security forces are seperate from sectarian militias. The militias are a problem but they are not included in the IP and IA. Proof is of the recent attacks by Sunnis and Shiites on each others holy shrines. The security forces held together and ended the violence. The "salvador option" has been discussed by civilians in the pentagon. It won't be implemented b/c it is just discussion.

USMC leathernecks: If a Stalinist told you that the Soviets repressed democracy in Eastern Europe for the good of the people there, and thus their humanitarian intentions could be taken for granted across the planet, would you think them a gullible lunatic or a wise analyst of international affairs?

*sigh*

What were you referring to when you first made the claim you had special information that would make us look ignorant?
Save me the sifting through pages and just tell me what i was refering to.

USMC leathernecks: If a Stalinist told you that the Soviets repressed democracy in Eastern Europe for the good of the people there, and thus their humanitarian intentions could be taken for granted across the planet, would you think them a gullible lunatic or a wise analyst of international affairs?
I think you forgot why it would be good for the people. If you are going to make a bad analogy at least make a real attempt at it.:p

Save me the sifting through pages and just tell me what i was refering to.

You boast of having special information in documents you could access in 6 months, but you have no idea what it was about?

:headbang:

Most American soldiers are white and from middle class backrounds.

Someone has already cited a source saying as much.

And another cited a source discrediting the first.

What's your source?

You boast of having special information in documents you could access in 6 months, but you have no idea what it was about?

:headbang:
First- I could access it tomorrow. However, I am leaving for iraq tomorrow at exactly 10pm e.t.

Second- As far as i can tell, I said things that could be stretched to what you think i said in response to a general comment that you made that i was not giving sources.

I could say the same thing about you always believing that the U.S. gov't has a hidden malicious agenda.

I don't. Sometimes their "malicious agenda" is quite unveiled, though apologists tend to find ways to obscure it. And I am not talking about malice at all, merely the pursuit of power, which is typical of states.

This argument is going to go no where seeing as we are both not going to change our positions.

True.

Wow. try responding to my points next time.

I pointed out the US rejection of the choices of the Iraqi people is a pretty good indicator of its respect for democracy in Iraq. You essentially responded by saying that the US had the right to ignore democracy in order to help the Iraqi people; I sarcastically agreed with you, and pointed out a potential model of aid.

That is directly responding to your point about the wisdom and benevolence of the US repression of democracy.

Security forces are seperate from sectarian militias. The militias are a problem but they are not included in the IP and IA. Proof is of the recent attacks by Sunnis and Shiites on each others holy shrines. The security forces held together and ended the violence.

The Iraqi government uses them for its purposes, largely. General repression, yes; dangerous provocations, no. The Shi'ite leadership has been very skillful at playing a delicate double game of simultaneously encouraging "moderation" while supporting US and Iraqi government repression of the Sunnis.

The "salvador option" has been discussed by civilians in the pentagon. It won't be implemented b/c it is just discussion.

Regardless, it does seem as if a situation much like 1980s El Salvador, with fake elections and massive state repression, was the intention in Iraq. The chief differences are the Iranian influence, Bush Administration incompetence, and ethnic and religious sectarianism. The US tried to exploit the sectarianism in order to achieve their aim, but the Shi'ite leadership's closeness to Iran and the refusal of Shi'ites like Moqtada al-Sadr to step in line has interfered with this plan. The result is the current mess.

I think you forgot why it would be good for the people. If you are going to make a bad analogy at least make a real attempt at it.:p

Why is it a bad analogy? You are excusing one example of repressive imperialism because it was "intended to help the people," whatever the composition or the results. I am referring to another example of repressive imperialism, also supposedly "intended to help the people," and which also had its benevolence refuted by the composition and the results, which according to you are irrelevant because they can be explained away by mere error.

The only difference is the imperial power in question.

I pointed out the US rejection of the choices of the Iraqi people is a pretty good indicator of its respect for democracy in Iraq. You essentially responded by saying that the US had the right to ignore democracy in order to help the Iraqi people; I sarcastically agreed with you, and pointed out a potential model of aid.

That is directly responding to your point about the wisdom and benevolence of the US repression of democracy.




I was actually pointing out that democray has its weaknesses in time of crisis. Also that democracy doesn't work when it is making decisions that it is not qualified to make. That is like a family coming in and making the doctor do something that is wrong during a surgery just b/c the family voted to have it happen.

I can't give you my sources.(man that sounds badass) Do you really want me to break into the base files to cite documents that for the most part you are not permitted to see. You have secondary and tertiary sources. I have primary sources and direct experience. Therefore i believe that i am more informed on the subject than you.

This is what you started the "secret documents" and "superior knowledge" crap with.

What were you referring to?

And why did it change from "for the most part you are not permitted to see" to OK for us to see but just not available to you?

We may have to name the Corneliu defense something else.

Someone has already cited a source saying as much.

And another cited a source discrediting the first.

What's your source?

Logic.

Why is it a bad analogy? You are excusing one example of repressive imperialism because it was "intended to help the people," whatever the composition or the results. I am referring to another example of repressive imperialism, also supposedly "intended to help the people," and which also had its benevolence refuted by the composition and the results, which according to you are irrelevant because they can be explained away by mere error.

The only difference is the imperial power in question.
And that is the key. One supported democracy which has been shown to produce more fow its people and one supported communism which is shown to do the opposite.

We may have to name the Corneliu defense something else.
Poll?
As good a sense of humour Corny has, i suspect i'd glean a little mod ire for that.
But if you've got a good title, go4it!

I was actually pointing out that democray has its weaknesses in time of crisis. Also that democracy doesn't work when it is making decisions that it is not qualified to make. That is like a family coming in and making the doctor do something that is wrong during a surgery just b/c the family voted to have it happen.

Again, you are making Iraqi democracy conditional on the US liking the decisions the Iraqis make. That is not "democracy." In a democracy, the people control important political questions like whether a foreign army should be occupying their country and killing people.

The Iraqi people are considerably more qualified to know what they need than arrogant US planners.

This is what you started the "secret documents" and "superior knowledge" crap with.

What were you referring to?

And why did it change from "for the most part you are not permitted to see" to OK for us to see but just not available to you?

We may have to name the Corneliu defense something else.
B/c some of the docs that i was getting info from were classified. If you feel the need, replace most w/ some.

B/c some of the docs that i was getting info from were classified. If you feel the need, replace most w/ some.

Again you are ducking the question of what the docs supposedly would prove.

This has gotten old already. *yawn*

And that is the key. One supported democracy which has been shown to produce more fow its people and one supported communism which is shown to do the opposite.

I think you have forgotten what we were arguing about. Pinochet, Somoza, Batista, etc. were not believers in democracy.

Again, you are making Iraqi democracy conditional on the US liking the decisions the Iraqis make. That is not "democracy." In a democracy, the people control important political questions like whether a foreign army should be occupying their country and killing people.
I would argue that that is a military, not political decision.

The Iraqi people are considerably more qualified to know what they need than arrogant US planners.
Yea i can see how those that have been studying these things for many years and even have experience are less qualified that those w/ slim to no knowledge of the subject and zero experience.:rolleyes:

Logic.
:eek:

DUCK!
Where's yer sense? You don't brandish that in a forum, under pain of torture!

For example ... see this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10812106&postcount=136
! :eek: !

Again you are ducking the question of what the docs supposedly would prove.

This has gotten old already. *yawn*
It's not like i have a once in a life time access to one particualr set of docs. I'm just saying that my career allows me access to what i consider a more reliable source. The reason that i say it is more reliable is that the info is directed to allow me and my peers to make better decisions and get an understanding of the reality of the situation.

Again you are ducking the question of what the docs supposedly would prove.

This has gotten old already. *yawn*
Are we not still in Corny territory?

I can't give you my sources.(man that sounds badass)Not "badass" so much as "lame".

I would argue that that is a military, not political decision.

And you, of course, would be content to surrender your democratic rights if any country invaded the US to "help the people," on the same grounds.

Yea i can see how those that have been studying these things for many years and even have experience are less qualified that those w/ slim to no knowledge of the subject and zero experience.:rolleyes:

Yeah! What do Iraqis know about Iraq, anyway?

:eek:

DUCK!
Where's yer sense? You don't brandish that in a forum, under pain of torture!

For example ... see this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10812106&postcount=136
! :eek: !

When did logic become evil?

And you, of course, would be content to surrender your democratic rights if any country invaded the US to "help the people," on the same grounds.
Actually, no i wouldn't.



Yeah! What do Iraqis know about Iraq, anyway?
A lot. But anyone can make incorrect decisions based on emotion as they are.

Actually, no i wouldn't.

Then you are a hypocrite.

A lot. But anyone can make incorrect decisions based on emotion as they are.

Except for the US government, which is immune to arrogance and solely acts altruistically.

Then you are a hypocrite.
No i'm not. Your scenario was taking away basic rights for a war effort. What we are talking about is letting those more qualified to make the executive decision.

Except for the US government, which is immune to arrogance and solely acts altruistically.
I said they acted on emotion, then you respond w/ some crap about arrogance. The american gov't would act w/ less emotion b/c it is not facing death.

No i'm not. Your scenario was taking away basic rights for a war effort. What we are talking about is letting those more qualified to make the executive decision.

The Iraqi people are far more qualified to make decisions concerning their own country and their own lives than any imperial power is. Furthermore, unlike the US, they have every reason to have their own interests at heart.

The american gov't would act w/ less emotion b/c it is not facing death.

Perhaps the Iraqi people attach more weight to their lives than the US government does?

When did logic become evil?
No no - not "evil", just extraordinarily dangerous in general forums of public opinion.
*nudge*

No no - not "evil", just extraordinarily dangerous in general forums of public opinion.
*nudge*

And it never became that way. It's always been that way.

The Iraqi people are far more qualified to make decisions concerning their own country and their own lives than any imperial power is. Furthermore, unlike the US, they have every reason to have their own interests at heart.
By that logic, a patient should be more qualified than a doctor to treat an infection in their body. Afterall, they have their own interests at heart.


Perhaps the Iraqi people attach more weight to their lives than the US government does?
No, b/c as i can attest to, when you are facing the possibility of death, you tend to make decisions in the short term. They don't need a short term success, they need a long term success.

And it never became that way. It's always been that way.
...pretty much. *nods solemnly*

By that logic, a patient should be more qualified than a doctor to treat an infection in their body. Afterall, they have their own interests at heart.

So does the doctor, because the doctor wants the reputation of being a good doctor. He thus has an interest in the patient's success. The US has an interest in Iraq not becoming a democracy.

Doctors are also probably considerably more altruistic than states.

Furthermore, patients most certainly have the right to be consulted about their treatment.

No, b/c as i can attest to, when you are facing the possibility of death, you tend to make decisions in the short term. They don't need a short term success, they need a long term success.

They still have the right to control their own country.

When did logic become evil?

Because logic oppresses people.

Because logic oppresses people.
...yes, but ....
...
...
...
...wait for it...
...
...
...
...the truth shall set you free!



... :rolleyes:

...yes, but ....
...
...
...
...wait for it...
...
...
...
...the truth shall set you free!



... :rolleyes:

What does logic have to do with the truth? :p

...the truth shall set you free!

"But first, it will piss you off."

So does the doctor, because the doctor wants the reputation of being a good doctor. He thus has an interest in the patient's success. The US has an interest in Iraq not becoming a democracy.

In keeping true w/ the analogy, the U.S. has an interest in seeing iraq become a successful democracy for the same reasons a doctor wants to see a patient succeed. BTW, you never gave a link to ur poll that says that iraqis want us out.


They still have the right to control their own country.
And i have the right to conduct a frontal assault on a fortified enemy position with my company. Doesn't mean it is the smart thing to do.

"But first, it will piss you off."
... and it appears the committee is to address the current amendment proposal on the floor ...

What does logic have to do with the truth? :p
That would probably be in the shakedown of testability. You know, what can be proven, what can't, that kinda thing .... the kinda showdown-between-truth-and-"the truth" sorta scenario, methinks.

In keeping true w/ the analogy, the U.S. has an interest in seeing iraq become a successful democracy for the same reasons a doctor wants to see a patient succeed. BTW, you never gave a link to ur poll that says that iraqis want us out.

I said "timetable," not "immediate withdrawal."

A large majority favors setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&amp;pnt=165&lb=hmpg2

The US cares little for its reputation; most governments are not naive about other governments' intentions, and most populations are the same way, at least as far as other people's governments. Far more important to it is power. Subduing Iraq shows its power capabilities and also provides it with crucial oil.

And i have the right to conduct a frontal assault on a fortified enemy position with my company. Doesn't mean it is the smart thing to do.

The Iraqis are being denied their right. You are not.

Tell a lie enough, and people will believe it it seems.
Hmmm...

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the 'truth' ( :rolleyes: ) to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - Shrubya, at the
Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY

...and it appears we indeed have confirmation. Order is restored.

BTW, you never gave a link to ur poll that says that iraqis want us out.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1537965.htm

These are bit more dated. But show the sentiment has been pretty consistent for 2 years.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/01/29/polls_show_iraqis_want_us_troops_out.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

I said "timetable," not "immediate withdrawal."


Then why the hell are we arguing if i agree w/ you?

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1537965.htm

These are bit more dated. But show the sentiment has been pretty consistent for 2 years.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/01/29/polls_show_iraqis_want_us_troops_out.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Yea, i know that they existed but i just wanted him to find em. Plus on the usatoday.com article there is a link showing another poll that says that iraqis are optimistic of their future. These condradictions are why i pay polls where i don't actually get to see the questions asked little respect.

Then why the hell are we arguing if i agree w/ you?

What? I am in favor of immediate withdrawal, for a number of reasons, among them because the Sunnis are, and they have suffered the most from the US occupation.

But we weren't talking about the advisability of withdrawal. We were talking about US respect for democracy. The US has repeatedly refused to produce a timetable, despite large support among the Iraqi public.

What? I am in favor of immediate withdrawal, for a number of reasons, among them because the Sunnis are, and they have suffered the most from the US occupation.


Yeah the Sunnis have suffered the most b/c when ur at the top there's only one way, down. I would like to know what you think an immediate withdrawal would accomplish.

Yeah the Sunnis have suffered the most b/c when ur at the top there's only one way, down.

There's some truth to that. But they still deserve to be part of any eventual arrangement, not to become a lower class. The US has actually been adopting this line recently; the Iranian ties of the Shi'ite leadership are scaring them. They made a grievous error when they decided to support Shi'ite tyranny as a tool for containing Iraq.

I would like to know what you think an immediate withdrawal would accomplish.

It could accomplish an end to US domination, and to the manipulation of sectarian politicking. There are three ways it could go:

1. With the absence of a power upsetting the balance, the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds agree to a unity government to prevent chaos, one undiluted by imperialist domination. Iraq becomes truly sovereign and at least semi-democratic.

2. With the withdrawal of the US, order collapses, and a full-scale civil war ensues. It ends with someone winning, and a brutal dictator coming to power. An unfortunate result, but one that the US can, ultimately, not stop if it is going to happen - not without inserting a brutal dictator of their own.

3. Iran replaces the US as the most powerful faction in Iraq, supports its Shi'ite allies, and they come to dominate. This, too, would be unfortunate, but it also seems quite likely, and only preventable by, again, the US inserting its own repressive dictator. Continued US occupation may delay but would not in itself stop this eventual result.

It could accomplish an end to US domination, and to the manipulation of sectarian politicking. There are three ways it could go:

1. With the absence of a power upsetting the balance, the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds agree to a unity government to prevent chaos, one undiluted by imperialist domination. Iraq becomes truly sovereign and at least semi-democratic.

2. With the withdrawal of the US, order collapses, and a full-scale civil war ensues. It ends with someone winning, and a brutal dictator coming to power. An unfortunate result, but one that the US can, ultimately, not stop if it is going to happen - not without inserting a brutal dictator of their own.

3. Iran replaces the US as the most powerful faction in Iraq, supports its Shi'ite allies, and they come to dominate. This, too, would be unfortunate, but it also seems quite likely, and only preventable by, again, the US inserting its own repressive dictator. Continued US occupation may delay but would not in itself stop this eventual result.
Now if only you would listen to yourself. Only one of three of the possible outcomes would be positive and that one would be quite unlikely.

Here are the possible outcomes if we stay a bit longer:

1. The political process works and a stable and democratic gov't is created.
a)the military holds and is able to secure the gov't
b)the military falls and the country descends into civil war
2. The political process fails, we have to withdrawal and can only hope the iraqis can solve their problems.
3. After success or failure, iran invades and creates one large middle eastern power. (preventable by keeping air and naval forces on standby)

Now if only you would listen to yourself. Only one of three of the possible outcomes would be positive and that one would be quite unlikely.

Here are the possible outcomes if we stay a bit longer:

1. The political process works and a stable and democratic gov't is created.
So have you divorced yourself from understanding plurality for favour of mental dichotomy?

So have you divorced yourself from understanding plurality for favour of mental dichotomy?
No, accidently pressed submit reply b4 i was done. hehe:D

Ok, next time we will talk it will be in 6 months. I'm leaving for iraq tomorrow. If i don't come back, just know that no matter what i said i probably respect you(keyword probably:D )

No, accidently pressed submit reply b4 i was done. hehe:D
Ah ... and now you're gonna leave us hanging? What's up with that? Six months?
...we mightn't be faithful. They's a lot tempting 'round hyah.

Now if only you would listen to yourself. Only one of three of the possible outcomes would be positive and that one would be quite unlikely.

Right. But the other two will not be stopped by remaining, unless the US uses extreme measures that will be just as bad as the alternative.

1. The political process works and a stable and democratic gov't is created.
a)the military holds and is able to secure the gov't
b)the military falls and the country descends into civil war

Impossible. Iraqi politics are hopelessly sectarian; there are few real issues, and no major party that does not base its representation on demographics. The government is unaccountable, and as a result it has been a failure in providing basic services to the Iraqi people, in maintaining order, and in protecting human rights.

Any serious popular movement will involve getting rid of the US, and thus the US will oppose any such thing.

2. The political process fails, we have to withdrawal and can only hope the iraqis can solve their problems.

That is, the US fails to achieve domination. My guess is that this is the most likely result, probably accompanied with a declaration of victory by the US government.

3. After success or failure, iran invades and creates one large middle eastern power. (preventable by keeping air and naval forces on standby)

Iran is almost certainly not going to invade. They know it will involve a US retaliation, and they do not desire one.

Ok, next time we will talk it will be in 6 months. I'm leaving for iraq tomorrow. If i don't come back, just know that no matter what i said i probably respect you(keyword probably:D )

Okay. Farewell.

Any serious popular movement will involve getting rid of the US, and thus the US will oppose any such thing.
Especially given all the effort involved in establishing that new mega-embassy. Just waiting for another act of war to unleash on the populace, in my opinion.

Existed.


I don't understand.
Please explain how having a military is oppression.

So the murderers are being lied to? Tough shit. In my eyes they forfeited their rights when they sold their lives to the state in return for cash and college.

Most of them come from the ultra-conservative stock anyway, and would believe this shit regardless of if they were in Iraq.

They all deserve a slow painful death and I can only hope that the American public comes to understand that and begins treating the bastards like we treating them in Vietnam.

I wish you the same painful death that you wish those serving in the armed forces. And if it wasn't against the law I would hook you up. However seeing as how most states have laws against killing stupid un patriotic bastards I guess I am out of luck. Just hope I never meet you in a dark alley cause where I am from assault is ok if the person assaulted issues fighting words...and boy those are fighting words.

They signed up to kill “sand niggers” and serve the state (not the country) in exchange for a college education. They are mercenaries- professional murderers. They deserve everything they get over there and so much more.



Ragheads or camel jockies...get it right pansy

Many (including, I presume, Saddam) expected Bush to go after Iraq at some point during his term. I would be highly unsurprised if Saddam began preparation in anticipation of Bush launching assassination attempts on him. Revenge and all that.Incorrect. See above.Potential access is not the same thing as what information comes to you, and in general, information access in Iraq tends to be spottier. See particularly - for example - the earlier comments about exclusive radio contracts.Soldiers go through rigorous brainwashing (aka "training") to make them act and think in particular styles. While this does not prevent decision-making, it does allow for far easier deception.

This is to say nothing of the following known psychological effect: People want to believe they're doing the right thing. Soldiers in Iraq have difficulty dissociating themselves from the Iraq war, and with good reason - they're part of it.

You are right part of basic is desensitizing military members to violence against acknowledged enemies. When I went through they used the guy who was shagging your gf while you were in bootcamp. But a big part of being military is the constant reaffirmation that you are killing to protect the constitution. That is what you sign up to defend and you defend that even over the president.

Accusing me of racism? The nerve. It is our soldiers who are the racists. They see foreigners as having less value than Americans, especially brown foreigners.

You don’t ever deserve to be paid for taking the life of another human being, ever.

My countrymen before others, my fellowstatemen before my countrymen and my friends before that. There is always an order to your identification. If there wasn't there would never have been an American Revolution because we would just have kept taking it from the UK

I wish you the same painful death that you wish those serving in the armed forces. And if it wasn't against the law I would hook you up. However seeing as how most states have laws against killing stupid un patriotic bastards I guess I am out of luck. Just hope I never meet you in a dark alley cause where I am from assault is ok if the person assaulted issues fighting words...and boy those are fighting words.
Eek. A threat. Gee, Undelia. Feel scared or something?

My countrymen before others, my fellowstatemen before my countrymen and my friends before that. There is always an order to your identification. If there wasn't there would never have been an American Revolution because we would just have kept taking it from the UK
You must be one of these people who're terribly keen on imposing hierarchical structures over everything and everyone. Hello there.

6 generals have come out against Rumsfeld. There are over 4,300 generals in the US. I'm sure you will find a half dozen people willing to say pretty much anything in a population that size.
I would like to see where you get this number...there may be 4300 colonols in the US but I doubt we have that many generals.

I can't give you my sources.(man that sounds badass) Do you really want me to break into the base files to cite documents that for the most part you are not permitted to see. You have secondary and tertiary sources. I have primary sources and direct experience. Therefore i believe that i am more informed on the subject than you.

I saw your primary sources..CNN has the same sources...look them up.

I would like to see where you get this number...there may be 4300 colonols in the US but I doubt we have that many generals.
Wonder where you get your numbers from, and why they smell funny like that.

You must be one of these people who're terribly keen on imposing hierarchical structures over everything and everyone. Hello there.

Not so much...but I find logical ordering prevents me from being upset at Iraqis shooting at me. After all you shouldn't kill someone out of hate. Well I'll make an exception for Undelia cause he really irks me. Essentially I will shoot an Iraqi to save a fellow soldier at not worry about it. And if the Iraqi is shooting me to save a fellow insurgent I understand, after all I would do the same.

Wonder where you get your numbers from, and why they smell funny like that.

I only saw 10 Generals in the 7 years I was in the military. They aren't that common and usually they are on the old side. So for their to be 4300 of them in the US would mean that the turnover is pretty high and they have a long life afterwards. Then again the Air Force may have a bunch tucked away in a closet somewhere...

Here is my take on the original thing. The guys in my outfit knew the whole 9-11 Saddam connection was wrong. We didn't go over there to shoot Iraqis as much as Undelia would like to believe. We were over there to protect US forces and rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. It didn't matter that the reasons for going in were possibly bogus. The man that was elected to president said go in and congress agreed to it. So we went as we swore to do. No one wanted to be there, well there was one guy.... I was a Marine and my duty was to go where my commander told me to go and he got his orders from his commander and so on until it hit the president. So it doesn't matter what the troops on the ground think about the war because they don't decide policy. Americans do based on the people they elect into office.

Some of our soldiers may be racist, just as some of our civilians are, but not all of our soldiers are racist. That is simply ridiculous and offensive.

They did not sign up "to kill sand niggers." Perhaps some did. But not all. Most signed up to serve their country and/or get an education and/or to feed their family.

Actually, professionalism in the military should be encouraged. Freedom is well served by a professional military that understands the limits of its authority and leaves political decisions to the civilian authorities. We are also better off with an all volunteer force than would by a draft.

And, yes, your flat out hatred for anyone that has joined the military is sickening.

Cat-Tribe...I...I...agree with you...Noooooooo, what is the world coming to? The apocalypse must be near. Quick, say something positive about affirmative action, so this burgeoning crisis can be averted!

I only saw 10 Generals in the 7 years I was in the military. They aren't that common and usually they are on the old side. So for their to be 4300 of them in the US would mean that the turnover is pretty high and they have a long life afterwards. Then again the Air Force may have a bunch tucked away in a closet somewhere...

Knowing the Air Force, they probably do. And then they bring them out whenever Congress feels like wagging an eraser at some aircraft or missile or shitty gun *cough*M16*cough* from the Air Force budget....

Of course, a majority of the US think Saddam was behind 9/11. So it isn't just the military population that is mistaken.

It's amazing how easy it is for people to be informed and yet how uninformed they are.

I've never understood that... I watch most of the major news channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN & Bloomberg) over the course of any given week. Likewise, I listen to NPR and read the NY Times, the NY Post, and the Wall Street Journal. While that may be somewhat out of the ordinary, I talk to lots of people in a given day... unless New York and Bridgeport are meccas of the Intelligencia, I just can't see how it's a majority... I've never met *anyone* with that view.

the obvious answer to the thread topic question would be: "do bears still shit in the woods?"

=^^=
.../\...

I saw your primary sources..CNN has the same sources...look them up.
Isn't one of the funny little legacies starting off with John "Fraidy-Cat" Ashcroft and his irritating OC the classifying of what, under ordinary circumstances, would be relatively benign legal material? :mad:

Isn't one of the funny little legacies starting off with John "Fraidy-Cat" Ashcroft and his irritating OC the classifying of what, under ordinary circumstances, would be relatively benign legal material? :mad:

I just remember our sources finding out things and less then 5 minutes later seeing it broadcast on CNN. I was just happy to find out info before CNN during operation in Afghanistan