NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Seems the Iraqis disagree with a lot of people outside of their country.

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Seems the Iraqis disagree with a lot of people outside of their country.

Well it's good to see they're at least confident we can "win."

Also, they're nothing wrong with sitting around naked in a beanbag chair.

Did they specify the regions the Iraqis were in?

The views of some guy out in the countryside and some guy in Baghdad might differ.

It's a simple fact that Iraqi refugees have increased in number, which surely means that there's a great deal of unhappiness somewhere.

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Seems the Iraqis disagree with a lot of people outside of their country.

How underwhelming. Taking shots at liberals.

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Seems the Iraqis disagree with a lot of people outside of their country.

That is weird.

That's BS. Iraqis hate what is going on now. It's ridiculous. The middle class has been wiped out or is trying to get out. Iraq will be scarred for decades. The world and Iraq was MUCH safer under Saddam.

There's a little more to that poll than Eve Online wants to show. Are you surprised? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece)

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites....

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq’s future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain — 35% said a family member had left the country.

Back to your bean bag chair, Eve.

That's BS. Iraqis hate what is going on now. It's ridiculous. The middle class has been wiped out or is trying to get out. Iraq will be scarred for decades. The world and Iraq was MUCH safer under Saddam.

Show me your opinion poll of Iraqis, and I'll believe you.

he doesn't have to, your own poll refutes your own arguments.
But polls have a liberal bias, except when they say what he wants them to say.

Show me your opinion poll of Iraqis, and I'll believe you.

Like your opinion, as illustrated in the OP is any more valid?? Nazz just owned you, not like that's unusual or anything. Why do you even try anymore? It's getting to be pathetic, and I almost feel sorry for you... almost.

From the same study:

53% believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better in the weeks following an immediate withdrawal of US forces. 26% think it will get worse.

50% of Iraqis experienced the murder or kidnapping of a friend, family member or colleague.

63% of Sunnis say they are in, or close to, a state of civil war. 49% of the total population and 36% of Shia think the same.

56% of respondents who said that they were in, or close to, a civil war would prefer a national government. 57% who said civil war was unlikely favor independent regional governments.

51% of Baghdad residents have had members of their families relocate (to Kurdish areas or out of the country) over the previous four years as a result of the security situation.

Taking everything into account, do you feel that things are better for you now under the present political system or do you think thinks were better for you before under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein? 29% of Sunni say better, 62% say worse or the same. 66% of Shia say better, 26% say worse or the same.

40% of all respondents are employed, 59% are unemployed. 32% say no one in their household is employed.

Source: http://opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdf

Show me your opinion poll of Iraqis, and I'll believe you.

he doesn't have to, your own poll refutes your own arguments.

There's a little more to that poll than Eve Online wants to show. Are you surprised? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece)

Not at all.

98% of polsters answered "yes" to the following question..

When polling, do you start with a question and provide a representative answer from a random sampling of the population, or do you start with a conclusion and extract supporting data from a select sampling of random data?

From the same study:

53% believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better in the weeks following an immediate withdrawal of US forces. 26% think it will get worse.

50% of Iraqis experienced the murder or kidnapping of a friend, family member or colleague.

63% of Sunnis say they are in, or close to, a state of civil war. 49% of the total population and 36% of Shia think the same.

56% of respondents who said that they were in, or close to, a civil war would prefer a national government. 57% who said civil war was unlikely favor independent regional governments.

51% of Baghdad residents have had members of their families relocate (to Kurdish areas or out of the country) over the previous four years as a result of the security situation.

Taking everything into account, do you feel that things are better for you now under the present political system or do you think thinks were better for you before under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein? 29% of Sunni say better, 62% say worse or the same. 66% of Shia say better, 26% say worse or the same.

40% of all respondents are employed, 59% are unemployed. 32% say no one in their household is employed.

Source: http://opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdf

Man, I don't think I've ever seen anyone so thoroughly owned by their own source in months.

Woah, there are so many stats in that poll that you justify almost anything you wanted.

Like how the Sunnis are living a comparitively secure life, but have the least amount of trust in the government, and the Shia, whose lives are least secure have the most trust in the government. Buh? Or has this something to do with the Shia majority in power?

Only 26% of Sunnis think Maliki will be able to disarm the militias.

61% of Shias think that Maliki will be able to disarm the Militias.

34% of Shias have had a family member murdered as opposed to 15% of Sunnis.

51% of Sunnis prefered life under Saddam

66% of Shias prefer life now than to under Saddam.

In Maysan Province in the South 39% of respondants thought both regimes were equally bad.

Only 21% of Iraqis think that Iraq will not get as far as civil war.

70% of thise living in Kurdistan believe the security situation has gotten worse.

------------------------------------

This poll says nothing of any consequence.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdf

<snip>
Source: http://opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdfI hate you for being faster than me.

Man, I don't think I've ever seen anyone so thoroughly owned by their own source in months.

It has a certain elegant beauty to it, doesn't it?

Man, I don't think I've ever seen anyone so thoroughly owned by their own source in months.

You obviously didn't see the time when I got owned by sourcing "Head of Korean Affairs" San-Ban McNutty* when debating about NKA tanks.

*That wasn't his real name, but may as well have been.

But this is worse than what I did.

Yeah, so?

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business.

Man, I don't think I've ever seen anyone so thoroughly owned by their own source in months.

Happened to New Mitanni in one of his global warming threads a couple of weeks ago. Then he claimed later in the thread that he hadn't actually said what he had said and so was vindicated. I expect Eve Online to do much the same thing before long.

Or maybe he wont. New Mitanni never knows when to cut his losses. Eve might.

Not to mention the poll data (from other polls) indicating that the majority of Iraqis support attacks on US forces.

Yeah, I'm sure they're truly grateful for their liberation....

Not to mention the poll data (from other polls) indicating that the majority of Iraqis support attacks on US forces.

Leftist propaganda, no doubt.

Yeah, I'm sure they're truly grateful for their liberation....

Why do you hate freedom?











Yes, I'm being sarcastic. ;)

Then he claimed later in the thread that he hadn't actually said what he had said and so was vindicated. I expect Eve Online to do much the same thing before long.

As I said in that thread, Johnathan Swift he aint.

This deserves a repetition of my previous question to EO. But, I'll ask the general NSG populace.

Why does he even bother anymore? All the scrambling to make some kind of jab at "liberals", which only results in making him look more foolish by the day. Why would he subject himself to that day after day, is he some kind of masochist martyr or something?

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?
Youa re surely NOT Deep Kimchi. He would not be so stupid as to leave himself open to such über ownage (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12442172&postcount=11).

From the same study:

53% believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better in the weeks following an immediate withdrawal of US forces. 26% think it will get worse.

50% of Iraqis experienced the murder or kidnapping of a friend, family member or colleague.

63% of Sunnis say they are in, or close to, a state of civil war. 49% of the total population and 36% of Shia think the same.

56% of respondents who said that they were in, or close to, a civil war would prefer a national government. 57% who said civil war was unlikely favor independent regional governments.

51% of Baghdad residents have had members of their families relocate (to Kurdish areas or out of the country) over the previous four years as a result of the security situation.

Taking everything into account, do you feel that things are better for you now under the present political system or do you think thinks were better for you before under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein? 29% of Sunni say better, 62% say worse or the same. 66% of Shia say better, 26% say worse or the same.

40% of all respondents are employed, 59% are unemployed. 32% say no one in their household is employed.

Source: http://opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdf


Nothing like pwning them with their own shite, is there?

When will the right wing learn that selective reading=bad?

98% of polsters answered "yes" to the following question..

When polling, do you start with a question and provide a representative answer from a random sampling of the population, or do you start with a conclusion and extract supporting data from a select sampling of random data?

Wow... and that's not even a yes-or-no question...

"More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces."

You're right Eve. We should withdraw our forces from Iraq.

Unless of course, you don't want to listen to their opinion, or don't care about their security.

Let's start taking bets on whether Eve will return. I bet that he will not be seen in this thread again.

Let's start taking bets on whether Eve will return. I bet that he will not be seen in this thread again.

I wouldn't take that one, I'd just lose money. He likely won't be back, and if he does return, I'm absolutely certain that he will not have read the pure ownage that has been dropped on him like a freight train.

eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs

...you mean when they aren't sharing close-cropped photos of their spouses' genitals with complete strangers, DK?

Mmmm?

I think that itch you're feeling on your ass right now has something to do with those rye crisps...

Iraq is in a bad shape... That much is true :(

...you mean when they aren't sharing close-cropped photos of their spouses' genitals with complete strangers, DK?

Mmmm?

I think that itch you're feeling on your ass right now has something to do with those rye crisps...
lol, own3d again

:confused: Did they specify the regions the Iraqis were in?

The views of some guy out in the countryside and some guy in Baghdad might differ.].

Yeah I'm sure they went to bumfu** Iraq to do this poll. I live in the middle of nowhere and people come up to me all the time to inquire as to my feelings on random topics. Why just the other day... ARE YOU HIGH??

2. It's a simple fact that Iraqi refugees have increased in number, which surely means that there's a great deal of unhappiness somewhere.

2. Do you think they didn't want to leave before?
We have provided the people there the freedom to leave with out being in fear of their lives, as well as the lives of their family members they would be leaving behind. That is why they come here. If our presence their is what is driving them out of Iraq, then why come here? Think about it. If they honestly believed that the Americans were bad and responsible for the way things are over there then they wouldn't dream of coming here.
"Gee these Americans are some evil mother f***ers, and I hate them. I want to leave Iraq because I hate it here now that the Americans are here, but where ever shall I go? Oh, I know, I'll go to the US so I can be surrounded by evil Americans."
Yeah that makes perfect sence.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :p

A poll that was partly commissioned by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stmOnly 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops.

About 86% of those questioned expressed concern about someone in their household being a victim of violence.

Asked whether they thought reconstruction efforts in Iraq had been effective, some 67% said they felt they had not.In essence - polls suck and are never good indicators of anything excepted money being wasted.

A poll that was partly commissioned by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stmIn essence - polls suck and are never good indicators of anything excepted money being wasted.

Not quite. What it more likely shows is the difficulty of polling in a place in as much flux as Iraq is, as well as the difference in questions between the two polls. But if it's easier for you to just act as though polls are meaningless, well, it's easier for some people to believe that God created the earth 6,000 years ago too.

Not quite. What it more likely shows is the difficulty of polling in a place in as much flux as Iraq is, as well as the difference in questions between the two polls. But if it's easier for you to just act as though polls are meaningless, well, it's easier for some people to believe that God created the earth 6,000 years ago too.

Wow EO, it seems everyone loves toolin you out like rented ho. I'll just sit back and watch the rip to shreds whar Nazz and I have destroyed for months. Why are these people so easily undone if they are so wonderfully brilliant. EO is alway touting how he lives in such an affluent and brilliant area where the people are so smart. I suppose the rest of the community makes uf for what he lacks then? Brovo Nazz keep up the carnage.

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Seems the Iraqis disagree with a lot of people outside of their country.

Goes along the lines of what I was hearing from our fighting men and women who have been over there.

That's BS. Iraqis hate what is going on now. It's ridiculous. The middle class has been wiped out or is trying to get out. Iraq will be scarred for decades. The world and Iraq was MUCH safer under Saddam.

OH brother! :rolleyes:

Seems the Iraqis disagree with a lot of people outside of their country.

They all think with one mind and speak with one voice do they?

I wouldn't take that one, I'd just lose money. He likely won't be back, and if he does return, I'm absolutely certain that he will not have read the pure ownage that has been dropped on him like a freight train.

Indeed. I'm thinking if he is thinkiing about coming back, he is waiting for this to go a couple of pages, wait for everybody to forget about the ownage, reply to a a completely random post with the same convuluted tripe, and get owned once more, call us all liberals, and leave for good.

Taking all bets!

OH brother! :rolleyes:
Don't scoff at the truth. Do the facts highlighted by Rhaomi also conform to what your unwelcome friends on the ground over there say?

And the rest of it?

Consistency with everything I"m hearing.

Goes along the lines of what I was hearing from our fighting men and women who have been over there.
And the rest of it?

Consistency with everything I"m hearing.
So the Iraqi's want the US out of there etc.?

Does the opinion of Iraqis count? No, America's brand of freedom and democracy is the only way. Long live the Republic! :P

I predict a timewarp.

Consistency with everything I"m hearing.

so:

Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

is consistant with everything you're hearing? you realize that this means that the majority of Iraqis believe the situation will improve after America withdraws?

Goes along the lines of what I was hearing from our fighting men and women who have been over there.

Could you, just once, reply to something on this topic with something other than pathetic, jingoistic, trifles of speech? Could you act like the adult you claim to be?

I guess it's a good sign. Hopefully it will translate in to a decline in violence and further economic development, but that still hinges on a lot more things than just the opinions of Iraqi citizens.

Any progress in Iraq is another step towards stable democracy and our troops coming home, so I'm happy with it.

ahhhh...Eve, I see you're putting aside that special time of day twhen you completely humiliate yourself online again.

Not quite. What it more likely shows is the difficulty of polling in a place in as much flux as Iraq is, as well as the difference in questions between the two polls. But if it's easier for you to just act as though polls are meaningless, well, it's easier for some people to believe that God created the earth 6,000 years ago too.I say they're meaningless because there are so many variables to account for when analysing a poll that it becomes nearly impossible to extract meaningful relationships from the data.

I rubbished a BSA survey last year, showing that is was completely unrepresentative of the population by comparing it to the Census that was only held a couple of years later.

This year I've managed to find supporting evidence for both my hypothesis and my null hypothesis in the same survey, and then evidence that would help to disprove the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. But then that statistical analysis shows that there was a strong relationship between the data... meh.

In fact I'm amazed at how diverse the poll is. They polled people from all over the country (mainly in cities), but of different religions, gender, ethnicity, education, age and other variables. Yet, as this thread shows it has been used to back up various points. EO's point being dominant in the UK press, and NSG's ridiculing of that point.

And surely the question about friends, relatives and colleagues was recorded badly. It seems to imply that if you have had a family member kidnapped then it is impossible for you to have had a relative of colleague murdered.

ahhhh...Eve, I see you're putting aside that special time of day twhen you completely humiliate yourself online again.

It's sad...when I first saw the thread, I was hoping Eve was finally coming around and deciding to listen to the Iraqis when it comes to the U.S. leaving Iraq...

:

2. Do you think they didn't want to leave before?
We have provided the people there the freedom to leave with out being in fear of their lives, as well as the lives of their family members they would be leaving behind. That is why they come here. If our presence their is what is driving them out of Iraq, then why come here? Think about it. If they honestly believed that the Americans were bad and responsible for the way things are over there then they wouldn't dream of coming here.
"Gee these Americans are some evil mother f***ers, and I hate them. I want to leave Iraq because I hate it here now that the Americans are here, but where ever shall I go? Oh, I know, I'll go to the US so I can be surrounded by evil Americans."
Yeah that makes perfect sence.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :p


7,000 Iraqis have come to the US. Two million are in Syria and Jordan.

:
from our fighting men and women who have been over there.

'Eagles' one and all
*sniff

There's a little more to that poll than Eve Online wants to show. Are you surprised? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece)
Back to your bean bag chair, Eve.

I already included the part about the withdrawal of forces being favored by Iraqis in my OP - but of course, you couldn't be bothered to read it, and acted in your post as though I didn't include it.

I see you're eating Cheetos naked.

How underwhelming. Taking shots at liberals.

Show me where I said anything about anyone's political leanings.

Or you are owned.

Show me where I said anything about anyone's political leanings.

Or you are owned.

I mean, if you want to see "how the war is going" why not ask some Iraqis, instead of asking people far away in other countries (many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs)?

Of all the posts you could have replied to you responded to the one that makes the self-ownage even more apparant? Come on, Eve, you could at least TRY responding to our points.

Show me where it says "liberal" or any particular political persuasion, as has been claimed.

You are so owned.

Considering your lack of reading comprehension it is no wonder you can't understand why that is a political statement. What else was it supposed to mean other than the classic hippie stereotype of liberals?

Show me where it says "liberal" or any particular political persuasion, as has been claimed.

You are so owned.

So you intended it to include anyone not over in Iraq intimately iinvolved with the war?

Including yourself?

Of all the posts you could have replied to you responded to the one that makes the self-ownage even more apparant? Come on, Eve, you could at least TRY responding to our points.

Show me where it says "liberal" or any particular political persuasion, as has been claimed.

You are so owned.

Show me where it says "liberal" or any particular political persuasion, as has been claimed.

You are so owned.


Trying to claim pwnage where pwnage has already occurred is truly the mark of a sad sack.

Who the fuck else was it to refer to? The 'Eagles'?

Show me where it says "liberal" or any particular political persuasion, as has been claimed.

You are so owned.

Please--keep the thread bumped, Eve. I love it when a person doesn't know when to quit.

Please--keep the thread bumped, Eve. I love it when a person doesn't know when to quit.

You still haven't shown where I said "liberal". I guess you don't know when to quit either - especially when you can't post a link to anything.

You still haven't shown where I said "liberal". I guess you don't know when to quit either - especially when you can't post a link to anything.

Hey, Eve! Straight question, so answer this or you just prove you're a fool:

What does the statemen "many of whom are eating rye crisp and sitting naked on beanbag chairs" refer to? Does it not refer to the classic hippie stereotype about liberals?

You still haven't shown where I said "liberal". I guess you don't know when to quit either - especially when you can't post a link to anything.

Never claimed you did use the word "liberal." Just claimed you were being curiously selective about the results of that poll you posted, which I and others absolutely proved, complete with links. Don't pull your back out moving those goalposts.

I guess it's a good sign. Hopefully it will translate in to a decline in violence and further economic development, but that still hinges on a lot more things than just the opinions of Iraqi citizens.

Any progress in Iraq is another step towards stable democracy and our troops coming home, so I'm happy with it.

I agree 100%

Do they want the us out so they can fight their civil war undisturbed? Or do they want the US out because the US has failed to provide them with the security they expected? Either way, if the Iraqis are telling the US and others to get out (although the Shia majority seem happier according to that poll) then the US and others should get out and try to cover their eyes while Iraq experiences a civil war/genocide with blood-letting un-matched by any conflict since the Second World War.

You still haven't shown where I said "liberal". I guess you don't know when to quit either - especially when you can't post a link to anything.

I'm keeping my pimp hand strong for this one. EO you're about o get bitch slapped once again as I am almost starting to feel sorry for you. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades though. Polling data suggest that only 18% of Iraqis trust US led forces in Iraq. 18%? WTF! That's where Bush's poll results shall be at the end of his term. One doesn't have to see you type the word liberal in your posts, you reek of desperation and freeper tendencies. It's very clear on what side of the spectrum you place yourself so clearly you are taking aim at your "opposition."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc;_ylt=AsBm3.euBck3GZ3T6gVaW8is0NUE

You've now been owned by your very own poll as well as mine. Have a great day and please find your dignity right were you left it on the floor. Really, you should know when you've been KO'd but you'll still fight. I don't know whether to pity the fool or admire him. Ah hell, "I pity the fool." :cool:

I'm keeping my pimp hand strong for this one. EO you're about o get bitch slapped once again as I am almost starting to feel sorry for you. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades though. Polling data suggest that only 18% of Iraqis trust US led forces in Iraq. 18%? WTF! That's where Bush's poll results shall be at the end of his term. One doesn't have to see you type the word liberal in your posts, you reek of desperation and freeper tendencies. It's very clear on what side of the spectrum you place yourself so clearly you are taking aim at your "opposition."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc;_ylt=AsBm3.euBck3GZ3T6gVaW8is0NUE

You've now been owned by your very own poll as well as mine. Have a great day and please find your dignity right were you left it on the floor. Really, you should know when you've been KO'd but you'll still fight. I don't know whether to pity the fool or admire him. Ah hell, "I pity the fool." :cool:

Still haven't shown me where I said "liberal" - or indeed any end of the spectrum.

Are you high again today?

No one. Just people (anyone) who thinks they know what is going on in Iraq - rather than the people who are actually there (the Iraqis, for instance).

So it referred to you as well, then, given that you didn't read the results of the poll?

Still haven't shown me where I said "liberal" - or indeed any end of the spectrum.



Then who was it supposed to refer to?

Still haven't shown me where I said "liberal" - or indeed any end of the spectrum.

Are you high again today?

Keep back-peddling EO. Care to respond to your own statistics that show you to be in error? Care to respond to the statistics that say only %18 of the population in Iraq trusts us? Who were you referring to when you posted this link? Were you talking about the people who support the war and this president as a "that a boy" or were you referring to people in opposition to their viewpoint? Really, i enjoy watching you try to weasel your way out of this one. Please respond to your own errors by partially reading your op and my statistics which show you to be owned once again. Owning you would mean that I would want to keep you though, and I'm not looking for welfare handouts on consignment. Finally, the military has random drugs tests so I'm just high on life. Well, life and the fact you are being pounded down and refuse to submit to the obvious.

Then who was it supposed to refer to?

No one. Just people (anyone) who thinks they know what is going on in Iraq - rather than the people who are actually there (the Iraqis, for instance).

No one. Just people (anyone) who thinks they know what is going on in Iraq - rather than the people who are actually there (the Iraqis, for instance).

Now back to the fact that it has been pointed out to you that your own statistics show you to be in error. Also, please click the link that shows you that only %18 trust the US led forces and tell us how gung-ho they are about our presence. We'll be waiting.

Now back to the fact that it has been pointed out to you that your own statistics show you to be in error. Also, please click the link that shows you that only %18 trust the US led forces and tell us how gung-ho they are about our presence. We'll be waiting.

The numbers are apparently an improvement over a month ago.

They aren't "my numbers" - they are a British poll.

Still going to pick and choose what you want to see, and bitch without proving a solution that you came up with?

Apparently, the surge has improved the poll results in just a month's time.

What solution do you have? Prove that it would work.

The numbers are apparently an improvement over a month ago.

They aren't "my numbers" - they are a British poll.

Still going to pick and choose what you want to see, and bitch without proving a solution that you came up with?

Apparently, the surge has improved the poll results in just a month's time.

What solution do you have? Prove that it would work.

Whoa, Nellie. The poll numbers say jack about the surge's effectiveness or lack thereof. That's a stretch worthy of PlasticMan.

Whoa, Nellie. The poll numbers say jack about the surge's effectiveness or lack thereof. That's a stretch worthy of PlasticMan.

One could argue that the change in attitude, as reflected by the polls, is indeed due to safer conditions brought about by the surge. I don't see why we shouldn't be a little optimistic.

Whoa, Nellie. The poll numbers say jack about the surge's effectiveness or lack thereof. That's a stretch worthy of PlasticMan.

Read the article I linked to. It says that the numbers are an improvement, Mr. I Don't Read Eve's Links.

Read the article I linked to. It says that the numbers are an improvement, Mr. I Don't Read Eve's Links.
I did read it. Where do you think I get the link that I used to own you on the first page? :rolleyes:

I did read it. Where do you think I get the link that I used to own you on the first page? :rolleyes:

Sure you did.

And BTW, you'll notice that I did post about how the Iraqis thought it would improve when we left - obviously, since you later claimed that I hadn't brought that up, you claimed you owned me.

Obviously, you didn't even read the OP. You just kneejerked.

One could argue that the change in attitude, as reflected by the polls, is indeed due to safer conditions brought about by the surge. I don't see why we shouldn't be a little optimistic.

If the poll were only taken in Baghdad and Anbar province, which is where the surge has been, then maybe you could make the connection, but even then you'd be looking only at a limited slice of the country. And to look at the results without looking at the breakdown between Sunni and Shi'a attitudes is just foolish.

If the poll were only taken in Baghdad and Anbar province, which is where the surge has been, then maybe you could make the connection, but even then you'd be looking only at a limited slice of the country. And to look at the results without looking at the breakdown between Sunni and Shi'a attitudes is just foolish.

There's a difference between Sunni and Shia,. Maybe someone should have told dear leader about that before the invasion. Nazz, as is evidence by the sheer number of people who have claimed EO to be bought and paid for he's still reeling. If the Iraqis would be happier when we leave EO why are you so opposed to a phased withdrawal? Clearly that would increase these numbers and support your original assertion moreover. You're comparing apples to oranges and Nazz called you out on it. It's called extrapolation, learn it.

If the poll were only taken in Baghdad and Anbar province, which is where the surge has been, then maybe you could make the connection, but even then you'd be looking only at a limited slice of the country. And to look at the results without looking at the breakdown between Sunni and Shi'a attitudes is just foolish.

Oh, polls are only good for the Nazz if they prove what the Nazz believes - like Kerry won Ohio.

Oh, polls are only good for the Nazz if they prove what the Nazz believes - like Kerry won Ohio.

EO, your own poll contradicts you and itself. Further, only %18 of Iraqis trust us, so how is this better?

I don't see why we shouldn't be a little optimistic.


The last 3 years not doing it for you?

The numbers are apparently an improvement over a month ago.

They aren't "my numbers" - they are a British poll.

Still going to pick and choose what you want to see, and bitch without proving a solution that you came up with?

Apparently, the surge has improved the poll results in just a month's time.

What solution do you have? Prove that it would work.

and the poll you cited contradicts itself and you. How can you use it as a basis for saying things are better when we still see that only %18 of the people trust US led forces? You can ignore this all you want but I'm still waiting for you to refute that. As for how I'd do it better, read the other post I'm currently pummeling you on.

If the poll were only taken in Baghdad and Anbar province, which is where the surge has been, then maybe you could make the connection, but even then you'd be looking only at a limited slice of the country. And to look at the results without looking at the breakdown between Sunni and Shi'a attitudes is just foolish.
Probably just as foolish as relying on the polls that overwhelmingly want the Americans out of Iraq. I'm sure you could, if you were inclined, put on the Devil's Advocate hat and punch a dozen holes in those polls, too.

Then, there's the anecdotal evidence...From an article that was linked to the original story, this gentleman seems to think that his safety is improving.
"In a vote of confidence in the surge by US troops, the shops were reopening last week. Hareth Salah, a 24-year-old student, said he had stopped attending courses at his technical college when the surge began last month.

'One of my friends was killed by the terrorists,' he said, 'but now there are a lot more Iraqi army checkpoints and I’m feeling more secure. I feel better; I can go out and do my shopping. More people have opened their stores and the markets are open longer.' "
Other stories report also report that violence is down.

Like I said, let's at least be hopeful that things are getting better, instead of looking for the dark cloud around every silver lining.

Oh, polls are only good for the Nazz if they prove what the Nazz believes - like Kerry won Ohio.

Back to the personal attacks? I must really be frustrating you today.

The last 3 years not doing it for you?

I'm not the one bemoaning the fact we're 'bogged down' in 'another Vietnam'. I believe we can support the Iraqi government and provide stability until it is self-supporting. That may be a lot of years of support, but that's the way things that aren't made for TV movies work.

and the poll you cited contradicts itself and you. How can you use it as a basis for saying things are better when we still see that only %18 of the people trust US led forces? You can ignore this all you want but I'm still waiting for you to refute that. As for how I'd do it better, read the other post I'm currently pummeling you on.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of leading or lagging indicators. Could it be that conditions need to be better/safer before trust is regained?

I'm not the one bemoaning the fact we're 'bogged down' in 'another Vietnam'. I believe we can support the Iraqi government and provide stability until it is self-supporting. That may be a lot of years of support, but that's the way things that aren't made for TV movies work.

In that case I agree. If we ignore everything that's happened before the second you read this post, it does look rather optimistic.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of leading or lagging indicators. Could it be that conditions need to be better/safer before trust is regained?

So how long must we shed our blood? How long must we allow more of them to die? Please let me know when enough is enough or are you proposing we stay there "for as long as it takes." Occupying forces will never be loved, See: India-Britain, any country occupied in WW2, et al. Or are you hoping that the entire course of history and human nature will change because you really really really want it to? Clearly you don't understand how studying the past is a good indicator of predicting the future.

This seems to be the day for Iraq polls to be released (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031900421.html). What I think it shows, more than anything else, is that polling in Iraq is difficult at best. This segment illustrates this point:
Another poll of Iraqis released this weekend by the British research firm Opinion Research Business found that 49 percent of more than 5,000 Iraqis interviewed said "things are better for us under the current system," as compared with 26 percent who favored life "under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein." Sixteen percent favored neither.

The ORB poll found that 27 percent of Iraqis said the country was in a state of civil war, with 22 percent saying the country was "close to a state of civil war."

In the more comprehensive ABC News poll, conducted in partnership with the German television network ARD, the BBC and USA Today, Iraqis were asked up-or-down whether the country was or was not involved in a civil war; 42 percent said it was. Of the 56 percent who said the country was not in a state of civil war, more than four in 10 said such a conflict was likely.

Nearly half of the Iraqis in the ABC News poll -- 49 percent -- said that bringing more U.S. forces into Baghdad and volatile Anbar province will worsen security. President Bush has authorized the deployment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to those areas to support a month-old security plan developed by the Iraqi and U.S. governments.

Sixty-nine percent of Iraqis in the poll said the presence of U.S. forces in the country makes the overall security situation worse, but just 35 percent said U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now." Thirty-eight percent said the forces should stay until security is restored; 14 percent said the forces should remain until the Iraqi government is stronger; 11 percent said they should stay until Iraqi forces can operate on their own.

So how long must we shed our blood? How long must we allow more of them to die? Please let me know when enough is enough or are you proposing we stay there "for as long as it takes." Occupying forces will never be loved, See: India-Britain, any country occupied in WW2, et al. Or are you hoping that the entire course of history and human nature will change because you really really really want it to? Clearly you don't understand how studying the past is a good indicator of predicting the future.
There are good examples and bad examples. The post war occupation of Japan is surely one of the former.

There are good examples and bad examples. The post war occupation of Japan is surely one of the former.

Er, the success of that had an enormous amount to do with Japanese culture. It's an unbelievably awful example, because you won't find many other groups that will react to being beaten by taking the point of view that the group that beat them was better than them. In fact, you'll generally find exactly the opposite.

And I'll guess that Nazz and Liuzzo miss the entire point of the thread - which is that Iraqis being polled are a far more accurate indicator than people sitting in their homes in Europe and the US.

Oh, they got the point of the thread. You, on the other hand, did not.

And I'll guess that Nazz and Liuzzo miss the entire point of the thread - which is that Iraqis being polled are a far more accurate indicator than people sitting in their homes in Europe and the US.

Er, the success of that had an enormous amount to do with Japanese culture. It's an unbelievably awful example, because you won't find many other groups that will react to being beaten by taking the point of view that the group that beat them was better than them. In fact, you'll generally find exactly the opposite.
From what I see of the Arab culture, they could be handled in a similar manner. The problem is that we're not willing to win. We want to control the situation, when what is really called for is a spectacular and humiliating defeat.

Look at what happened in the first days after the invasion. Khadafi announced he would dismantle his WMD programs -- there's shock and awe, for you. Same thing a year or so later in Lebanon -- Syria started to back off of it's control.

But, as I said, we're not willing to cause the kind of damage that would lead to the kind of victory that is needed. The two atomic bombs that we dropped on Japan surely affected their perception of how we would treat them after occupation. A real victory in Iraq, where the other side actually surrenders because they can't stand the carnage anymore is what is needed to gain the respect, or at least the obedience of the few that would cause problems.

From what I see of the Arab culture, they could be handled in a similar manner.
Then you see little.

Look at what happened in the first days after the invasion. Khadafi announced he would dismantle his WMD programs -- there's shock and awe, for you. Same thing a year or so later in Lebanon -- Syria started to back off of it's control.
Khadafi is a bad example, because Britain and France had been negotiating with them on their WMD programs for years previous to the shock and awe. To hint that it was the Iraq invasion that made Khadafi come scurrying and tossing his programs at the west yelling "I give! I give!" is a bit much, and that's the way a lot of pro-war people at the time cast it.

Er, the success of that had an enormous amount to do with Japanese culture. It's an unbelievably awful example, because you won't find many other groups that will react to being beaten by taking the point of view that the group that beat them was better than them. In fact, you'll generally find exactly the opposite.

Appearances aside, Japan in fact found the occupation thoroughly miserable... Luckily (in the long run) they were in absolutely no position to resist, had strong sense of unity, and was occupied by a determined USA that ended up buying a pile of stuff there to support the Korean War - leading to the economic boom.

No one. Just people (anyone) who thinks they know what is going on in Iraq - rather than the people who are actually there (the Iraqis, for instance).

No-one/anyone....dear me.....

Does the opinion of Iraqis count?:rolleyes:
Sure, just ask the French..
they will tell you how much their opinion counted under the Gov of Tierry Henry Filipe Puetain.

Sure, just ask the French..

Speaking of the French...

Let's put all this poll stuff in context. Or take a slight detour...There are unhappy people everywhere. The Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3ecee064-d578-11db-a5c6-000b5df10621.html) shows that, in the E.U. anyway, things are not on track either.

The malaise gripping the European Union as it approaches its 50th birthday this week is highlighted in a new poll which shows that 44 per cent of citizens think life has got worse since their country joined the club. . . .

The FT/Harris poll, conducted in the EU's five biggest countries and the US, found that only 25 per cent of the Europeans questioned felt life in their country had improved since it joined the EU.

This doesn't mean people in Baghdad are better off than people in Brussels. But if present trends continue, eventually they will be.

This doesn't mean people in Baghdad are better off than people in Brussels. But if present trends continue, eventually they will be.

I wasn't aware that there were increasing numbers of random armed attacks with explosives and firearms occurring in Brussels...

Snip rant.

Fascinating. I cannot help but notice that EVERY solution you propose involves genocide.

So in conclusion I would just like to thank Eve Online for posting an excellent article in which he cites Iraqi opinions to help justify a pullout from Iraq. I didn't know he had it in him but I think him a better person now.

I wasn't aware that there were increasing numbers of random armed attacks with explosives and firearms occurring in Brussels...

Well hey, that's no reason why we can't hijack the thread to bash the French.

Fascinating. I cannot help but notice that EVERY solution you propose involves genocide.What problem cannot be solved by genocide... now if you want a desirable solution then that's another matter.

What problem cannot be solved by genocide... now if you want a desirable solution then that's another matter.

Mit's idea of desirable includes, ALWAYS, muslims dying.

Fascinating. I cannot help but notice that EVERY solution you propose involves genocide.
I notice that you don't understand war and the history of war. It's a terrible thing, but once engaged, it needs to be fought to a victory. As much as I hate to agree with Sherman, he was right when he said, "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it". There's no room for gentlemen on the battlefield.

I wasn't aware that there were increasing numbers of random armed attacks with explosives and firearms occurring in Brussels...
The point is...Never mind, you wouldn't know a point if it poked your eye out.

Well, time to pull out all the troops then, I suppose.

Well hey, that's no reason why we can't hijack the thread to bash the French.

The most amusing part is that Brussels isn't in France.

Or did someone miss that along the way?

Well, time to pull out all the troops then, I suppose.



The most amusing part is that Brussels isn't in France.

Or did someone miss that along the way?
But the French are in the E.U.

I notice that you don't understand war and the history of war. It's a terrible thing, but once engaged, it needs to be fought to a victory. As much as I hate to agree with Sherman, he was right when he said, "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it". There's no room for gentlemen on the battlefield.

Very well, but then you'll have to see as legitimate whatever the opposing side does to harm yours. Or else you'll be a hypocrite.

Very well, but then you'll have to see as legitimate whatever the opposing side does to harm yours. Or else you'll be a hypocrite.
Not sure I understand. If there wasn't any opposition, then there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?

5,000 Iraqis? I bet I could find 5,000 others who abhor the US for what it has done to their country. Actually, why not ask the families of all those killed in sectarian violence, or those tortured by coalition forces?

5,000 Iraqis? I bet I could find 5,000 others who abhor the US for what it has done to their country. Actually, why not ask the families of all those killed in sectarian violence, or those tortured by coalition forces?

I bet I could find 5000 Americans who would give radically different answers on a poll.

Just watched a show the other day where a pollster says that the legitimacy of polls done by calling people is threatening their business with collapse, because a true sample cannot be drawn anymore.

Apparently, the number of people who hang up on a pollster is now around 90%.

Not sure I understand. If there wasn't any opposition, then there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?

Simple. If anything is acceptable for a country to win a war, it would be equally so were you, or your family, the victims.

I bet I could find 5000 Americans who would give radically different answers on a poll.

Just watched a show the other day where a pollster says that the legitimacy of polls done by calling people is threatening their business with collapse, because a true sample cannot be drawn anymore.

Apparently, the number of people who hang up on a pollster is now around 90%.

Sounds close in truth.

I bet I could find 5000 Americans who would give radically different answers on a poll.

Just watched a show the other day where a pollster says that the legitimacy of polls done by calling people is threatening their business with collapse, because a true sample cannot be drawn anymore.

Apparently, the number of people who hang up on a pollster is now around 90%.

And some people come to NSG to start threads based on information in polls.

I have no idea if you are being ironic or idiotic.

And some people come to NSG to start threads based on information in polls.

I have no idea if you are being ironic or idiotic.

I'm talking about Iraq, where apparently you can still find 5000 people willing to answer poll questions.

It's nearly impossible in the US, compared to even a few years ago.

Evidently, people are pissed at pollsters, and don't want to give them any ammunition here.

But the French are in the E.U.

But why was Brussels brought up?

The French are not in Brussels in large number. Bringing up Brussels, because the French are dissatisfied with EU, in the proposed argument, is like bringing up Washington, because the Iraqis are dissatisfied with the American Army.

Now, there is a link between French and EU and Brussels and EU.

There is a link between Washington and the American Army and the Iraqis and the American Army.

But the argument proposed defeats the link between the French and Brussels, as well as the Iraqis and Washington.

I'm talking general here, because if it ain't general in the proposed argument, it doesn't matter.

But why was Brussels brought up?

The French are not in Brussels in large number. Bringing up Brussels, because the French are dissatisfied with EU, in the proposed argument, is like bringing up Washington, because the Iraqis are dissatisfied with the American Army.

Now, there is a link between French and EU and Brussels and EU.

There is a link between Washington and the American Army and the Iraqis and the American Army.

But the argument proposed defeats the link between the French and Brussels, as well as the Iraqis and Washington.

I'm talking general here, because if it ain't general in the proposed argument, it doesn't matter.
Brussels is an euphemism for the EU, much like Washington is for the US. Right? The French were just the transition into the discussion about the EU.

The US opinion matters more. Its a fact. Afterall they spent all money and what not going there.

I bet I could find 5000 Americans who would give radically different answers on a poll.

Just watched a show the other day where a pollster says that the legitimacy of polls done by calling people is threatening their business with collapse, because a true sample cannot be drawn anymore.

Apparently, the number of people who hang up on a pollster is now around 90%.

QFT

As much as I hate to agree with Sherman, he was right when he said, "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it". There's no room for gentlemen on the battlefield.
Then may there be no room for war on Earth.

Then may there be no room for war on Earth.

Unfortunately it is here and we must live with it and pray that it is resolved quickly.

Unfortunately it is here and we must live with it and pray that it is resolved quickly.

You say "it is here" as if GWB hadn't dragged it here.

Then may there be no room for war on Earth.

As far as neocons are concerned, war is like jello. There's always room for it.

Unfortunately it is here and we must live with it and pray that it is resolved quickly.

Clearly the key is building a time a machine, going back, and stopping ourselves for start said war, so that we might not need to take this course of action

It is a pretty silly way to go about things, after all.

You say "it is here" as if GWB hadn't dragged it here.

THat's because war has been part of Human history for alot longer than the US has been around.

As far as neocons are concerned, war is like jello. There's always room for it.

There's never room for it but unfortunately, war is everywhere and one must deal with it.

Then may there be no room for war on Earth.
Now there's a pipe dream and a half. Not that I'm disagreeing about the allure of
a peaceful world, only the likelihood.

Clearly the key is building a time a machine, going back, and stopping ourselves for start said war, so that we might not need to take this course of action

It is a pretty silly way to go about things, after all.

I agree 100%

Why is it that right-wingers are so selective about poll results?

For instance, consistently since about 2004 Iraqis have strongly supported a timetable for withdrawal - something Bush has continually refused to provide.

They want us to get the fuck out. Undoubtedly they would prefer an improvement in the security situation beforehand - but since most such "improvements" since the invasion have been temporary and insubstantial, and this is after all almost four years in, it may be time to give that particular wild goose chase a rest.

The US military is not going to bring security to Iraq.

I agree 100%

...I'm not sure if that went quite as I planned it, but I'm just gonna roll with it, M'kay?

Brussels is an euphemism for the EU, much like Washington is for the US. Right? The French were just the transition into the discussion about the EU.

The Iraqis, being discontent with the way the American Gov. is acting, go out on shooting sprees in Washington and turn it into a hell hole.

Replace Iraqis with French, American Gov. with EU and Washington with Brussels.

Do you see either happening?

Discontent is not always measured by guns and ammo :o

I don't even know who I am arguing for/against anymore.

Unfortunately it is here and we must live with it and pray that it is resolved quickly.

Nothing personal, but I think we better do something a bit more substantial than pray about it. Defunding the war would be one substantial way to resolve it--not the only one, but it is a way.

Nothing personal, but I think we better do something a bit more substantial than pray about it. Defunding the war would be one substantial way to resolve it--not the only one, but it is a way.

I was talking about war in general, not the Iraq War.

I was talking about war in general, not the Iraq War.

*shrug*

"Defunding [any war in general that we may just happen to be funding] would be one substantial way to resolve it--not the only one, but it is a way."

I was talking about war in general, not the Iraq War.


Well, people have been praying to one god or another for a long time now, and fuck all has changed.

Well, people have been praying to one god or another for a long time now, and fuck all has changed.

The problem is not God, it's that you don't believe in "MY" God. If you don't believe in my God I hate you. If you believe in my God but not the exact same story I hate you. If you believe in my God and the same storyline, but you stole milk from my cow, I hate you. Damn it, I just hate you! :rolleyes:

The problem is not God, it's that you don't believe in "MY" God. If you don't believe in my God I hate you. If you believe in my God but not the exact same story I hate you. If you believe in my God and the same storyline, but you stole milk from my cow, I hate you. Damn it, I just hate you! :rolleyes:

Pretty much accurate.

Pretty much accurate.

The sad part is that the majority of religions preach compassion and understanding for others. Why do so many "religious" people use their faith to hate and even harm others?

The sad part is that the majority of religions preach compassion and understanding for others. Why do so many "religious" people use their faith to hate and even harm others?

I cannot answer that for I do not know the answer.

I cannot answer that for I do not know the answer.

Which is odd because you are religous, and have uttered such gems as

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.

I would have thought the contradiction between the Baby Jesus thing and those kind of statements would put you in poll position for an answer.

The sad part is that the majority of religions preach compassion and understanding for others. Why do so many "religious" people use their faith to hate and even harm others?

The cynical side of me wants to say it's human nature. We take advantage of every ideology we develop, so why should religion be any different?

Which is odd because you are religous, and have uttered such gems as

Quote number 1 is out of military necessity and not out of religious preference.

Quote number 2 deals with illegal combatants who are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

Quote number 1 is out of military necessity and not out of religious preference.

Quote number 2 deals with illegal combatants who are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

"Thous shalt not kill"...."Turn the other cheek"....ringing any bells?

"Thous shalt not kill"...."Turn the other cheek"....ringing any bells?

Yes but once in a military engagement, one fights to win.

Yes but once in a military engagement, one fights to win.

"Thou shalt not kill unless involved in a military engagement" What version of the Bible are you reading?

Yes but once in a military engagement, one fights to win.

If one is following the teachings of Jesus then one would never be in the military engagement in the first place.

You can't eat your cake and have it Corny.

Yes but once in a military engagement, one fights to win.

WWJK?

WWJK?

I have to ask: Who would Jesus Kill?

The idea of a christian advocating war is rediculous in the extreme. Christ, if he was real and the teaching accurate, would never advocate warfare like this, under any circumstances.

"render onto ceasar" and all that?

The idea of a christian advocating war is rediculous in the extreme. Christ, if he was real and the teaching accurate, would never advocate warfare like this, under any circumstances.

"render onto ceasar" and all that?

I would rather have peace than war.

I would rather have peace than war.

but you support war, which goes against the fundamental teaching of the godhead of your religion?

I would rather have peace than war.

Which is why you supported the current bloodshed that Bush STARTED?

but you support war, which goes against the fundamental teaching of the godhead of your religion?

I do not want war. I do not desire war. However, once my nation's military is engaged in one, I'll support them in their fight.

I do not want war. I do not desire war. However, once my nation's military is engaged in one, I'll support them in their fight.

So you're such a good Christian that, once your nation STARTS a war, UNPROVOKED, you're willing to forget all the basics of your religion for the pleasure of seeing some brown people lose their limbs?

THE NEW MESSIAH HATH COMETH!!! HE IS ON THE INTERNETZ!!!

Yes but once in a military engagement, one fights to win.


emmm...quote 2 there refers to somebody you've captured. I also refer you to the whole "thou shalt not..." and "love..." stuff mentioned by the other posters.

emmm...quote 2 there refers to somebody you've captured. I also refer you to the whole "thou shalt not..." and "love..." stuff mentioned by the other posters.

I'm not going to repeat myself. It is obvious you are not understanding what I am saying. So I"m no longer going to bother explaining things to you because it is obvious the explaination is above your head.

I'm not going to repeat myself. It is obvious you are not understanding what I am saying. So I"m no longer going to bother explaining things to you because it is obvious the explaination is above your head.

Sorry, I missed the bit where you showed how it was ok by Baby Jesus to shoot a guy you captured in the back of the head purely because he was an "illegal combatant".

Could somebody link me to the post Cornhoolio mentioned that in?

Sorry, I missed the bit where you showed how it was ok by Baby Jesus to shoot a guy you captured in the back of the head purely because he was an "illegal combatant".

Could somebody link me to the post Cornhoolio mentioned that in?

I'm still looking for that commandment Deus Malum mentioned.

I'm still looking for that commandment Deus Malum mentioned.


Yep. What I can't figure out is why they bother with the convulted thinking. Why not worship something more logical and in tune with what they do...Odin, for instance. Have a couple of beers, torture a few prisoners...raid and plunder foriegn countries and home in time for wild boar...

I'm talking about Iraq, where apparently you can still find 5000 people willing to answer poll questions.

It's nearly impossible in the US, compared to even a few years ago.

Evidently, people are pissed at pollsters, and don't want to give them any ammunition here.

Not all polls seem to agree with you. Given what I have been hearing I would say this would be a more accurate version of what Iraqis actually think.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

Quote number 1 is out of military necessity and not out of religious preference.

Quote number 2 deals with illegal combatants who are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

I doubt that Jesus would rely on such legal niceties.

I'm not going to repeat myself. It is obvious you are not understanding what I am saying. So I"m no longer going to bother explaining things to you because it is obvious the explaination is above your head.

"Forgive them, father, they know not what they do!"

and

"Kill'em all, let God sort'em out!"

Now, please, tell me, Messiah, can you tell the difference between these two?

Not all polls seem to agree with you. Given what I have been hearing I would say this would be a more accurate version of what Iraqis actually think.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

Indeed. Here's a third one:

Iraqis are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future of their country and unhappy about their lives, a survey suggests.

Less than 40% of those polled said things were good in their lives, compared to 71% two years ago.
Asked now whether they thought reconstruction efforts in Iraq had been effective, some 67% said they felt they had not.

And just 38% said the situation in the country was better than before the 2003 war, while 50% said it was worse.

The poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf) as presented by BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6464277.stm?ls)

"Forgive them, father, they know not what they do!"

and

"Kill'em all, let God sort'em out!"

Now, please, tell me, Messiah, can you tell the difference between these two?

I am no Messiah. I am not perfect. I am leaving my religion out of this debate.

I am no Messiah. I am not perfect. I am leaving my religion out of this debate.

And advocating rabidly anti-Islamic, misguided policies that have resulted in yet another bloodbath for the USA.

In fact, the US does remind me of Lady Macbeth at times. Fancy jumping off a tower?

And advocating rabidly anti-Islamic,

Now that's pure BS. I am not anti-Islamic at all.

I am no Messiah. I am not perfect. I am leaving my religion out of this debate.

You claim to follow the mandates of the Christian religion. You don't. Simple as that. You advocate carpet-bombings that you KNOW will kill innocents.

You claim to follow the mandates of the Christian religion. You don't. Simple as that. You advocate carpet-bombings that you KNOW will kill innocents.

First rule of warfare is to survive. You do not win wars by playing nice. Again, i'm not going to rise to the religious bit because I am not talking about religion. Continue to bring it up but I'll constantly ignore it.

Again, i'm not going to rise to the religious bit because I am not talking about religion. Continue to bring it up but I'll constantly ignore it.

No, you won't rise to the religious bit because you KNOW you'd lose. Do you know the situation you're currently in? I could NAME my moves here and you'd still lose this argument, because, yes, by advocating the wanton and purposeful slaughter of innocents, you ARE being un-christian.

I am no Messiah. I am not perfect. I am leaving my religion out of this debate.

Well, its a bit late for that when it was you that threw the whole "prayer" thing in. Plus you have a religous declaration in your sig which doesnt seem to be there for humour.

Now, how do you square shooting a captive in the back of the head because they are an "illegal combatant" and the whole baby Jesus thing.