Who Is Left In Iraq?
After the 1972 Iraqi-oil-revolution, many foreign companies started to fly into Iraq to reserve a space for the soon-to-flourish third world country. Oil companies and investors fought their way into the newly born economic sector in here. According to the Iraqi law, companies have to have Iraqi lawyers to supervise their work and help in the paperwork. But the baath party wouldn’t, of course, let the companies work freely. They had to know everything!Khalid Esa Taha, a well known Iraqi lawyer at the time, was a British company’s lawyer. The company was called William Press. His job was to monitor and supervise the legality of the company’s work and make sure nothing was against the rules of the Baathist Iraq. As part of his job, he had to endure the harassments of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen and intelligence officers. The intelligence asked Taha to accept employing one of their minders in his office to spy on his work and the foreign companies that might contact him. And to keep his job, he had accepted to allow one of them to be handyman or waiter in the office.
Taha said that the minder’s job was to enter the room without permission whenever Taha had a meeting with a customer or a meeting. “He used to enter the room 20 time serving coffee,” Taha said and laughed when he recalled the scene.
A few months later, Taha said, the minister of trade in the 1970s, who was a friend of Taha’s, offered him a high-rank job in the government. A job that Taha later refused because he didn’t want to be involved in a Baathist government. The minister visited Taha five times offering the job, Taha said. But the answer was always “No.”
“They are going to be upset. You know what that means!” the minister said to Taha about the government officials the last time he visited. “I will go back to prison,” Taha answered. Given the sensitivity of his job, Taha was taken to the Mukhabarat [civil intelligence] building several times for interrogation.
In a chit-chat gathering, a friend of Taha’s once told him that he might be threatened. That the government might put him in jail because he worked for foreign companies and refused to work in the government.
“They wouldn’t say you are a political prisoner,” Tahas’s friend told him. “It’s either a sodomite or a thief,” he told him the accusation would be. Taha said that it was true. He said he heard that Abu Ghraib prison had housed many political prisoners, but the charges were either sodomy or thievery. He recalled a man who he named as Nasrat Abdul Karim, who opposed the baathist government in the 1970s and was assassinated. The rumor the security forces spread at the time was that Karim was gay and his partner killed him.
The government killed opposition members, but never thought that would be enough. It was common that they would destroy the reputation of their victims so that their families would suffer after the also. They even were afraid of the opposition members after they died. My uncle was an influential figure in the Iraqi opposition until he died in the 1990s. Hussein didn’t allow his remains to be buried in Iraq although the family requested that. He feared the opposition members and their ghosts!
In 1979, Taha, the lawyer who was in his early 50s at the time, was arrested and detained at the Mukhabarat prison. He never knew why, but knew the charges.
When he arrived to the detention facility, he was given a pair of pajamas. Taha is fat! The pajamas were tight. When he told the guard that he couldn’t put on the pajamas, the guard laughed and said “they are small now. they will be big on you. Wait. We will put you in a diet program,” and left.
When they took off his blindfold, he found himself in a red room with only one tiny bulb and no windows. He said that later that night he heard voices of women weeping and crying. The guards were raping them. He kept hearing these horrible voices for 119 nights.
Taha recalled how he saw men being forced to sit on beer bottles. “Blood would pour from their bottoms and the guards would push them further down so the bottle would go deep inside,” he said. Taha himself was beaten three times a week the entire time he was there. But he didn’t know why. He remembered a journalist who was detained with him but had already spent two years in captivity. Taha said that the guards would take the journalist and ask him to sling himself on a four-meter-high stairwell and start beating his bottom for hours. If the journalist loose his hands, Taha said, he would fall and die.
“Loose your hands and die. Fuck them,” Taha said he always thought when he saw the scene. “Fall and die. It’s much dignifying than enduring this torture,” he insisted.
119 days later, Taha and other detainees were taken to appear before a judge. Three detainees were taken into the judge’s room before Taha an spent seven minutes, he said, to come out sentenced to death. They came out crying, he said.
When Taha was taken into the room, the judge asked him if he were beaten or disrespected. “The guard had already told me ‘if you say we have beaten you, I will kill you before the judge’ ” Taha said. So he told the judge that he was respected during the whole time!
Taha was sentenced to six years in prison and all his assets to be confiscated. The charge was that he had deals and suspicious contacts with foreign companies.
Taha didn’t tell what happened after that. He doesn’t tell if he served the sentence or escaped or was freed by an amnesty. He recalls the time of his captivity bitterly. He calls is a “horrible period.”
“It is hard to imagine how a human being could oppress his brother this way,” he said. “Even the animals. The lion kills a prey. But when he is full, he leaves it. But here, they don’t become full. They like blood and torture and smile when the victim dies.”
Taha couldn’t stay in a country, where his dignity was destroyed and stolen. As many other Iraqi intellectuals. He fled Iraq. A country that leads its educated people and patriots to the doorstep and ask them to leave and keep the vulgar to continue tear it a part. A country that never welcomed its own people and will never do!
At 11:32 AM, 
At 12:02 PM, 
Lynnette in Minnesota
For Iraq to emerge from the darkness that has consumed it, it must NOT tolerate this kind of behaviour.
That means putting people in power who will fight for decent treatment of all detainees.
That means finding honest people that will fight the pervasive corruption.
It means TEACHING people basic tenets of right and wrong.
It means holding Iraqis to the SAME standard that they would hold coalition forces to.
The value of an Iraqi life should not be any less than anyone elses.
At 4:37 PM,
I'm hoping that Maliki's reconciliation proprosal starts the process of Iraqis working together and the beginning of stability in Iraq. If so, I also hope that a lot of the Iraqis who have moved to Jordan will return and even those from further away.
There are a lot of Iraqis who have not left -- for example, the first Iraqi blogger, Salam Pax. His two friends, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad and Raed Jarrar married foreign women, so I don't know if they're ever going back.
The ITM brothers -- Omar, Mohammed, and Ali -- are also still in Iraq. BTW, Ali is blogging again at Free Iraqi. Riverbend doesn't post very often, but I think she's still in Iraq. And BT and 24, of course, are still in Iraq. BT, however, may be coming to the heart of the Great Satan, like Zeyad if he gets his visa.
Hey, why do all these Iraqis come to the US? Why not Germany or France, the countries that opposed the toppling of Saddam? Can anyone explain that?
*
At 9:27 PM,
The Suffering of Iraq under
Saddam must be known...
I believe our host and Iraqi
should get to gether and try and write a book perhaps portrying
the lives of say 20 families
Under Saddam ... publish the book in many languages and donate
the profits to say the orphanages
and childrens hospitals in Iraq.
Lets Hope enough members of the
"patriotic resistance" are tired
of the cycles of violence and
begin to see how all Iraqi lives
can flourish under the new
Government and electoral System.
So much oil wealth ... so many
historic sites for fat wealthy
Kuwaiti/iranian/American/Saudi
tourists to spend many many dinar,
combined with the agriculture
and the Tigres and Euphrates ...
Iraq should move to one of thge most prosperous nations in the world .... and yet people are trying to destroy it ....
very very sad.
24 –
It’s right that you remember the victims of the Hussein regime.
It’s right that you remind people of the rampage that his forces went on.
On BT’s blog some person accused him of being pro- Occupation because he spoke about how crappy the Hussein regime was, and how he hoped that America would wipe away the remnants of the corrupted Baathist regime. I think that sometimes people don’t appreciate just how bad things under Hussein could be. I don’t blame you at all for remembering and celebrating his deposal.
However, I would like to point out a few interesting … and alarming … realities about the American occupation.
The first point is – not only did the US *not* get rid of Hussein’s security apparatus, and torturers, but it went further and INCLUDED these torturers in a new, CIA – operated security apparatus. Shahwani, who heads the ‘new’ Mukhbarat, is a CIA operative. The new Iraqi intelligence agency STILL does not fall under Iraqi governmental jurisdiction, but reports rather to the CIA and CENTCOM.
These are facts:
Old brutality among new Iraqi forces
By Jill Carroll, The Christian Science Monitor - 5/3/2005
“In fact, many of the old members of Saddam Hussein's security forces are filling the ranks of the new police units and security forces. And many of these hardened soldiers practiced in the brutality of his regime initially received no Western-style training, says Robert Perito, an expert on post conflict security at the US Institute of Peace. "In the long run, with the assistance of the US military unfortunately ... [we are creating] a security force which is very much like the old Saddam security forces," says Perito. "That's not what we set out to do." //end
This is not some vague allegation. Specific units have been named.
For example:
Unravelling Iraq’s Secret Militias
Indypendent - May 2005 Volume 18 Number 5 – AK Gupta
“ Not only are many of these shadowy militias linked to Iraqi politicians, but the Pentagon is arming, training, and funding them for use in counter-insurgency operations. Most disturbing, one militia in particular—the “Special Police Commandos”—is being used extensively and has been singled out by a U.S. general for conducting death squad strikes known as the “Salvador option.” The Police Commandos also appear to be a reconstituted Hussein security force operating under the same revived government body, the General Security Directorate, that was formerly tasked with suppressing internal dissent.
At the highest levels, White House officials consider the Police Commandos as the leading force against the insurgency. In hearings before the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 16 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the commandos are among “forces that are going to have the greatest leverage on suppressing and eliminating the insurgency.
[…]
A third militia, the Special Police Commandos, is led by Gen. Adnan Thabit, who participated in the disastrous 1996 coup against Saddam Hussein that Allawi coordinated.
[…]
Thabit told the Armed Forces Press Service last October that the Commandos are drawn from “police who have previous experience fighting terrorism and also people who received special training under the former regime” of Saddam Hussein. A report from October 20, 2004, also quotes U.S. Army Col. James H. Coffman Jr., who specifies that Police Commandos are “former special forces and [former Directorate of General Security] personnel….”
[…]
The Directorate of General Security was one of the main security services Saddam Hussein used to maintain an iron grip on Iraq. The Center for Nonproliferation Studies describes the service’s role as “detecting dissent among the Iraqi general public” by monitoring “the day-to-day lives of the population, creating a pervasive local presence.” //end
In other words, what has happened is that Iraqis are undergoing the destruction of their country in the name of liberation from Hussein and his security apparatus. But when one looks at the facts, the reality is that all the destruction will not result in a new, free country … no … it will result in an Iraq UNDER THE SAME SECURITY APPARATUS that the US is supposedly liberating you from.
The torturers and killers have a new master – but they are the same people, with the same job.
The names have changed – but the faces are the same.
(And Americans act all shocked when I tell them I despise their foreign policy.)
Gee, really, I wonder why?
At 5:26 AM,
Bruno, TAI, Annie, and Jeffery,
You have offiacially ruined 24's blog for me by your 2 page long comments that are nothing but you guys waging battle on each other. This blog would be so much more enjoyable if hey only let sane people comment on what they felt about the article.
Come on, you guys have your own blogs to ruin, go there!
At 4:36 PM,
Oh, sorry Lynnette. It was nothing profound, just a message for Cathy (who has either disappeared or is "anonymous" above, in which case using Irish looks like it might not have been too apt). I simply said "Hi Cathy" ...(well, ok there's no word for "Hi" in Irish, only "God with you")... "Lynnette told me that someone else from Dublin was posting here".
At 6:43 PM,
Bruno's newspaper, the Indypendent is, of course, a propaganda paper: "The paper's wide-ranging acceptance of left-wing ideologies (including more traditionally leftist and Maoist viewpoints) has also been criticized by many anarchists. Some former volunteers have argued that The Indypendent falls short of its explicitly egalitarian ethos and is dominated by one or two long-time members. Finally, the paper's editorial process has been criticized as non-transparent and authoritarian, and some journalists have complained that their work has been "over-edited" by paper editors..."
Once again, Bruno cites a source that has no legitimacy.
At 3:17 AM,
[anonymous] “You have offiacially [sic] ruined 24's blog for me by your 2 page long comments that are nothing but you guys waging battle on each other.”
Ehm, see that little wheel on top of your mouse? If you put your finger on its surface, and move your finger towards you, the offensive comments will move up, up and away, like magic! It’s called “scrolling”.
Point two: 24’s writing stands on its own. You can enjoy his excellent reports without commentary.
[anonymous] “This blog would be so much more enjoyable if hey [sic] only let sane people comment on what they felt about the article.”
Funny, that’s what I thought I did.
Oh.
You mean you want twenty variations of “ That’s terrible”, one under the other. You don’t want context to the post. You don’t want to ponder about the implications of the very people that perpetrated 24’s outrage STILL being in power for a different master.
You don’t want to have to think about anything, in other words.
[Kryptonite] “ Bruno's newspaper, the Indypendent is, of course, a propaganda paper: […]Once again, Bruno cites a source that has no legitimacy. ”
Kryptonite, you know, when I’m confronted with an article that I don’t agree with, I take the time to dissect it and explain exactly why the facts are wrong and why it has no credibility.
When StrategyPage posted an article on how Iraqi WMD had been “moved to Syria”, I tore that piece to shreds on their site, specifically addressing the factual basis of those claims. I didn’t post an anonymous quote from the nether regions of the internet basically saying “you suck!”.
That’s a juvenile and frankly an amateur response – not that I think you are capable of anything else.
You have yet to rebut the facts that:
(1) The US has proposed at length about deploying the so-called “Salvador Option”
(2) Thabit is a former member of the Mukhabarat
(3) He told the Armed Forces Press Service that his men were former Saddamist “special operatives”.
(4) US Col Coffman said that Thabits men (now the SPC) were former DGS personnel.
(5) The role of the DGS in keeping the Iraqi populace in a grip of fear.
(6) The fact that the Special Police Commandos were set up under US aegis.
In other words, your whining has done ZERO to address the facts.
But let it not be said that I’m a bad sport. Kryppie doesn’t like the (eeek!) Indypendent? Well, here’s another relevant article (from a completely different source) on the Mukhabarat and the American attempts to recruit them for you to moan about:
CIA recruits Iraq's feared secret police
Mark Franchetti, Times Online, 21 September 2003
“AMERICAN forces have launched a covert campaign to recruit former officers of the Mukhabarat, Saddam Hussein's infamous secret police, who were responsible for the deaths and torture of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Dozens of agents are now in the pay of the Americans, who have turned to their former foes for help in hunting resistance groups responsible for daily guerrilla attacks against coalition forces.
[...]
"We are under strict instructions not to publicise our work with the Americans, but dozens of former Mukhabarat officers have already been recruited," said Mohammed Abdullah, a colonel who spent 10 years in the Mukhabarat and eight in military intelligence.
"They need us. The Mukhabarat was one of the best state security organisations in the world. We had informants everywhere. Most of all the Americans need intelligence. Who better to give it to them than us?" Abdullah, 48, has worked with the CIA and American forces since early May. A fluent English speaker, he is paid $700 a month.
A long-time member of the Ba'ath party, he made no attempt to hide his respect for Saddam nor to deny that the Mukhabarat tortured and killed on an awesome scale.
[...]
"Saddam was highly intelligent and he loved his people," Abdullah said. "He was a strong leader and the mistakes he made were the fault of people around him who gave him poor advice. "Everyone now is saying they hated Saddam. They are lying. But I don't see anything wrong in working with the Americans. "I want to help rebuild my country and I must adapt to these changes."
[...]
Khalid's cell was one of several from the feared Fifth Section of the Mukhabarat that dealt ruthlessly with Iraqis spying for Syria and Iran. Although he claimed never to have used physical violence against suspects, he admitted to sitting in on interrogations during which alleged foreign spies were tortured.
"They were given electric shocks or were attached to a reinforced fan and left to spin for an hour from the ceiling," he said. "They were severely beaten with batons, and sometimes relatives would be beaten in front of a suspect to force him to talk." Despite his past, Khalid was approached by the CIA through a former Mukhabarat colleague. He had a three-hour meeting with a CIA officer who debriefed him about his work with Iraqi double agents.” //end excerpt
[anonymous] "Wow, I just read an article at the CSM that said only 9% of Iraqis think like you, Bruno."
Uh ... an anonymous poster citing an anonymous unlinked poll on a position that he has not explained ... and not explained how that unexplained position applies to me.
Would it be harsh of me to tell you to get lost?
At 4:07 AM,
Ohh oops,
Breakin the law, breakin the law.
It just says that only 9% of iraqis think removing the occupation is the number 1 priority. Most think that security is the top priority, than sending the US home.
That tells me that Iraqis don't think the US is the root of all evil in Iraq(just some), or just foolish.
Looks like your going to have to step up your campaign.
Here's the article, don't know how to link.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0627/p01s03-woiq.html
And since you cited the CSM, I don't expect any gaff at me for citing it.
At 6:46 AM,
Bruno, to respond to your "facts" they have to actually be facts - real facts. Not shit you pulled from leftist propaganda on the internet. I was merely pointing out, again, that your sources have no credibility, which in turns renders your facts nothing more than useless tidbits of socialist trivia. Try responding with logic, not your version of the "facts."
At 7:09 AM,
So, is it your implication that the US is recruiting former employees of the Mukhabarat to ... what - torture Iraqis? Are you assuming that, if they worked for Saddam's intelligence services they are useless to the coalition's attempts to assuage the current chaos? Bruno - did you ever take a math course in school? 1+1 does not equal 11. Nice try though. At least you are using a slightly more reputable writer than AK Gupta. And I LOVE how you quote a Jill Carroll article - this isn't the same Jill Carroll that was kidnapped by the insurgency is it? The same one who talked shit about America while a gun was pointed at her head by your insurgents? The same Jill Carroll who rescinded ALL of those statements made under duress and then praised American troops for their professionalism and courage in their diligent attempts to rescue her? It couldn't be THAT Jill Carroll could it, because that would totally undermine everything you've been saying up to this point.
At 7:10 AM,
So, is it your implication that the US is recruiting former employees of the Mukhabarat to ... what - torture Iraqis? Are you assuming that, if they worked for Saddam's intelligence services they are useless to the coalition's attempts to assuage the current chaos? Bruno - did you ever take a math course in school? 1+1 does not equal 11. Nice try though. At least you are using a slightly more reputable writer than AK Gupta. And I LOVE how you quote a Jill Carroll article - this isn't the same Jill Carroll that was kidnapped by the insurgency is it? The same one who talked shit about America while a gun was pointed at her head by your insurgents? The same Jill Carroll who rescinded ALL of those statements made under duress and then praised American troops for their professionalism and courage in their diligent attempts to rescue her? It couldn't be THAT Jill Carroll could it, because that would totally undermine everything you've been saying up to this point.
At 7:47 AM, Lynnette in Minnesota
PeteS,
Apparently there is some question if Cathy is who she really says she is. Ahhh, well. With the internet you just don't really know.
Bruno,
"Ehm, see that little wheel on top of your mouse? If you put your finger on its surface, and move your finger towards you, the offensive comments will move up, up and away, like magic!"
Yes, but your finger gets so damn TIRED!
Judas Priest references aside, this is nonsense. Not your post, so much as the IRI Poll on which the Christian Science Monitor article is based. The IRI is infamous for its weighted polls, which address a central question in an oblique manner, bundling it together with a bunch of other unrelated but important concerns. Then when the results reflect the skewed result that the pollsters were angling for all along, erroneous conclusions are drawn. Such as in whether US troops are welcome in Iraq or not.
Naturally the IRI will not ask such a question directly.
But, even within this weighted poll, there are useful indications of reality.
Whereas it is true that only 9% of Iraqis rate the removal of US troops as being their most important concern, the reality is that this contrasts with 48% of Iraqis that rate Security as their most important concern. On page 40 of the same poll only * 1% * of Iraqis in response to the question “who do you trust to protect your personal safety” put their trust in US troops. Most people trust the IP or IA.
And if we look at other polls that DIRECTLY address the question of the Occupation (since the IRI is never able to do so) we have far more interesting results.
Example (1) :
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 23/10/2005) – Sunday Telegraph
“ The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam". The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation.” //end
Example (2):
Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq
World Public Opinion - January 31, 2006 (PIPA Poll 2006)
Asked if it was a good idea for Iraqi leaders to have agreed at the Arab League conference that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq, 87% say that it was, including 64% of Kurds, 94% of Sunnis and 90% of Shia.
[...]
A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.
Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly).” //end
You can download the PIPA poll directly over here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf
So, to recap: when ASKED DIRECTLY, 82 –87% of the Iraqi populace is opposed to US occupation and want US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis are so against you that they think killing your troops is a good thing.
THAT, my friend, is the reality facing you.
At 6:26 PM,
Take a look at your site again, dummy. Only 16 percent of Kurds and 40 percent of Shias approve of attacks on US led forces, while a whopping 88 percent of Sunnis approve. Another god damn lie by Bruno.
Meanwhile 81% of kurds and 59% of Shias DISAPPROVE of attacks on US led forces. Meanwhile, of the overall Iraqi population, OVER HALF DISAPPROVE of your tactics of attacking coalition forces.
Now, how the HELL did you miss this one you idiot?
Kryptonite, if you didn’t exist you’d have to be invented.
Sometimes I wonder if you are not really some anti-invasion activist pretending to be a clueless wingnut, just to give us something to aim at. Because, wallah, you are such a joke.
Right off the bat, you failed to address ANY of the FACTS that were pointed out to you in monotonous detail. Even an ignoramus like you must realise that the articles I posted are not drawn from the writer’s imagination, but in fact reference several diverse primary sources, which themselves are NOT “lefty” writers (as if that were any criterion for reliability or not). Col. Coffman is NOT some “lefty” writer, for example.
Secondly, I hardly think, with your track record of outright fabrication and gross distortion (which I will only be to happy to reference, given that the relevant comments are safely stored on my HDD) YOU are in any way a credible judge of the value of an article.
Thirdly, and most hilariously, I note and guffaw at your extensive rant about Jill Carroll. (God, you were so excited you posted it twice, heh, heh) Even IF your critique of her were not ridiculous (which it is) – it is entirely irrelevant. Because, my dear ignoramus, I did NOT quote ANY such article by her on this subject.
Repeat: I DID NOT excerpt from Carroll’s writing.
I excerpted from the Times Online – not only did you get the author wrong, but the publication too.
Now, if you were just able to master simple reading and comprehension skills, perhaps you could avoid the continued embarrassment that is your existence on these boards. Quite frankly, if I were a more enlightened war-apologist (Lynnette or PeteS, for example) I’d just wish you would die and STFU due to the continual foot-in-mouth antics you display.
But I’m not and I don’t.
Stick around, please.
You make great entertainment material.
Your second post is even more entertaining.
:*D
I wrote the above post of mine last night, hoping that by the time I came to the office today you wouldn’t have noticed your “Jill Carroll” gaffe and removed it. Hurrah, you didn’t. Whenever I count on your density I am rewarded, thank you Kryppie.
But even better was your second rant.
Rant? Nay, rather a delicious sweet to be savoured at length.
Let’s start here:
[kryptonite] “Only 16 percent of Kurds and 40 percent of Shias approve of attacks on US led forces, while a whopping 88 percent of Sunnis approve. Another god damn lie by Bruno.”
LMAO! Those are almost EXACTLY the numbers I provided, you retard! How on earth is my statement a lie? Boy, you’re not the sharpest pencil in the box, are you?
[Kryptonite] “Meanwhile 81% of kurds and 59% of Shias DISAPPROVE of attacks on US led forces. Meanwhile, of the overall Iraqi population, OVER HALF DISAPPROVE of your tactics of attacking coalition forces.”
Firstly, why don’t you excerpt exactly that sentence from the PIPA link for us? We’ll wait. I’m sure that you don’t want to be exposed as a liar yet again.
Secondly, the point isn’t that 53% of Iraqis think killing your troops isn’t a good idea. The point is that Iraqis are *incredibly* generous, given that while nearly 90% of them want you on a timetable out of there, only 47% are willing to see you die to have that happen. That’s the point.
Additionally, if you know ANYTHING about COIN warfare (which I’m sure you don’t) you will realise that movements with even a paltry 10 – 15 % support amongst a given populace can drag wars on for DECADES. In Iraq you have about 21 million Iraqis that want you OUT, and about 12 MILLION IRAQIS THAT WANT YOU DEAD.
Whatcha’ gonna do, kill ‘em all?
“Liberate” them all to death?
You lost the “hearts and minds” battle long ago.
Go Home.
At 7:10 AM,
bruno...jesus, you're stupid - your 5.01 am post CITES JILL CARROLL.. Scroll up and read what YOU posted. Mmmmkay, dummy? yes, yes, i posted it twice. you score points for that one. so now - Bruno: 1 Krytonite: 76. Good job, you're comin' back.
Bruno, the point of the poll is that, since you've started foaming at the mouth and ranting on these blogs, you've assumed that the majority of Iraqis believe attacks on US troops are justified. Your OWN damn poll undermines your entire argument. Youre just too stupid to realize it. But, go ahead and BELIEVE that your poll helps you. I find the numbers very encouraging for a country at war.
Now, please tell - what facts have you presented on this blog? Now, before you attempt to answer, your socialist rants and conspiracy theories are not facts. They aren't even your own ideas...Until you present a CREDIBLE fact, I will continue to undermine your plagiarized opinions and conspiracy theories by undermining the sources you present as authority.
There was a time when it would have been possible to see the Baath party removed from power without the need for a full scale invasion. It seems to me, however, that the actions of those who were eventually responsible for that invasion only encouraged Hussein's vicegrip on power for decades, first through outright support and then through the genocidal sanctions regime. Perhaps there is something that we can learn from the suffering inflicted upon those who were under the thumb of this opressive regime, and take steps to ensure people do not have to endure this kind of pain and suffering. Peaceful steps.
At 1:35 PM,
bruno, you are a blast. what a crack up listening to tool/krispy try to slither around twisting like the rat he is caught in a trap of his own making. his dragon suit need a trip to the cleaners, its getting thrashed.
i love the calm at which your clean blade slices thru his absurd arguments while the bloody corps of his victory claims fall on deaf ears.
more,more, the peanut gallery is cheering.
[kryptonite] “your 5.01 am post CITES JILL CARROLL”
Groan. That was posted like 30 comments ago. That’s the problem when dealing with “special” people like yourself … your bundled synapses stutter on the edge of an idea and then fire all at once when the conversation has long moved on.
Any comments that you have left over from the last time we chatted … say two months ago or thereabouts? If you need to get something off your chest, now is the time.
Secondly, the CSM article cited * Perito* not Carroll’s opinion. That’s the other problem with you. You have no ability to differentiate between the SOURCE and the WRITER. This is elementary, elementary stuff. (If Carroll cites Bush, is Bush discredited?) I mean, come on, you dunce, try to catch up, please.
Perito is an expert on post conflict resolution – specifically policing – from the USIP. He has been involved in the process from the start and his predictions on the post invasion chaos have been spot on. HE IS THE CRITIC. And he is right.
Onward.
[Kryptonite] “Bruno, the point of the poll is that, since you've started foaming at the mouth and ranting on these blogs, you've assumed that the majority of Iraqis believe attacks on US troops are justified.”
Quite simply, that’s a lie.
Repeat: that’s a lie.
Please provide the relevant quotation by myself.
I am intimately acquainted with the Iraqi polls, and know very well that the numbers do not say that. The numbers DO say that you are overwhelmingly unpopular and that 85% + of Iraqis want you out of Iraq. The numbers say that virtually nobody thinks that you provide security for them. The numbers say that you are viewed as an Occupier. The numbers also say that 47% of Iraqis dislike you so much they would like to see you die in order to get you out.
Again, that’s 12 million Iraqis.
Again, do you advocate killing them all?
[Kryptonite] “Now, before you attempt to answer, your socialist rants and conspiracy theories are not facts.”
Gosh, I never realised that you are a bona fide Truth Inspector. Yep, who would have guessed that some unknown liar on the internet called Kryptonite is the sole arbiter of what is "credible" or a "conspiracy theory"? LOL!
Oh, puhleeeze Mr Truth Inspector Kryptonite, wontcha publish a list of 'credible' sources, puhleeeze?
We all await with bated breath for your words of wisdom ...
[Kryptonite] "I will continue to undermine your plagiarized opinions and conspiracy theories by undermining the sources you present as authority."
Kryptonite, again, and for the last time, unless it’s the OPINION of the author, discrediting quotes by the author does nothing at all to affect the credibility of the original person being quoted. The FACTS that I presented are gleaned exactly from such primary sources. I should *charge* you for being so patient in correcting your wacky logic.
Let's recap:
You have not in the least addressed any of the facts presented as to the reincorporation of Hussein's Mukhabarat, nor the involvement of Adnan Thabit, nor the role of the CIA in running the current Iraqi apparatus.
In fact you said:[Kr] "Are you assuming that, if they worked for Saddam's intelligence services they are useless to the coalition's attempts to assuage the current chaos?" ... thereby implying *yourself* that Mukhabarat members would be useful to the US efforts at fighting the resistance - a resistance to US rule which ironically reflects the opinion of the vast majority of Iraqis that Iraq should be free of Occupation.
Neither have you addressed the question of the extreme unpopularity of the US in Iraq right now, and the question of how, exactly, you intend on dealing with the 21 million Iraqis that want you to leave, nor the 12 million Iraqis that are willing to see you die in order to make you leave. The Iraqi popular opinion is against you, by a long, long way.
In other words, you have been completely unable to address any of the facts on the ground.
You have resorted to shrill attacks on the media - which (even if your criticism of 'bias' were correct, which its not) have directly quoted and referenced primary sources within the US legislature and armed forces.
In other words, you have actually just blown off hot air.
You’re going to have to do a lot better than that.
Now, I’m going to post this and take off for a nice relaxing weekend at home. On Monday I will return to inspect the meager results of your scavenging for contrary information. If you want to be taken seriously I hope for your sake that you have something better than this panties-up-the-crack squealing.
Adieu till then.
Peanut gallery –
It’s a pleasure to be of service. I guess that Kryppie just doesn’t realize that he’s the comic relief around here. Sorta like those stage scenes where everyone is deadly serious and frowny, and then the moron sidekick comes running in and trips over his own shoelaces. He’s a relaxing diversion from the more intense discussions where one has to actually think and ponder the deeper issues within the issues.
The scary thing is though, he and his types represent a substantial slice of the wingnut fruitcakes that cheered this war and that continue to cheer for it. Bill o Reilly, for example, who has a large following of people just like Kryptonite in the USA, recently said that if *he* were in charge of Iraq, he’d run it JUST LIKE SADDAM. That’s the sentiment that’s bubbling under the surface of these types. If you bother to tease it out, you’ll get them to admit it every time. The Mukhabarat being incorporated into the new Iraqi intelligence services under Hussein is just a reflection of their inner thoughts. Is it *any* surprise that there is such carnage in Iraq today … when these types are running the show?
At 7:26 AM,
"The scary thing is though, he and his types represent a substantial slice of the wingnut fruitcakes that cheered this war and that continue to cheer for it. Bill o Reilly, for example, who has a large following of people just like Kryptonite in the USA, recently said that if *he* were in charge of Iraq, he’d run it JUST LIKE SADDAM. That’s the sentiment that’s bubbling under the surface of these types."
LOL - Bruno, I have NEVER cited Bill Oreilly in any of my posts. Another lie. Therefore, to you, I "cheer" war and I am JUST LIKE Bill Oreailly. Are you capable of making any argument without editorializing, attaching your own agenda, and presuming things you could not possibly know?
"Groan. That was posted like 30 comments ago. That’s the problem when dealing with “special” people like yourself … your bundled synapses stutter on the edge of an idea and then fire all at once when the conversation has long moved on."
Another lie. The Jill Carroll post is on this comment: "Old brutality among new Iraqi forces
By Jill Carroll, The Christian Science Monitor - 5/3/2005". Bruno, everyone can see that this was posted at 5.01 am. At 5.02 am, you posted the notoriously propaganda drive Indypendent article by AK Gupta. Not 30 comments ago. Not 30 posts ago. You posted it IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE INDYPENDENT ARTICLE THAT INITIATED THIS CURRENT DISCUSSION.
Another Bruno lie bites the dust...
"The FACTS that I presented are gleaned exactly from such primary sources." Okay...then POST THE PRIMARY SOURCE. Again - I don't want to see anything editorialized...then maybe we can have an actual discussion.
The Poll you cited appears to not be agenda driven. It also really hurts your argument so, of course, I like it. But again, you have editorialized what the poll means - you suggest that, even though ONLY HALF of Iraqis believe attacks on Coalition forces are justified many, many more want the US out of Iraq immediately. Now please explain your logic here. If you believe that many more than 50% of Iraqis want the US out, why would that same number not believe that attacks on US forces are justified? You are basically saying that many more than half of Iraqis watn the US out, but they don't think anything should be done about it. This makes no sense in the real world, although it is perfectly consistent with your "Iraq must fail" agenda.
But, keep quoting the poll. I love it. I'm very happy and encouraged by it. Actually, I think I'll go to some other blogs and cite to it, as it supports my position that the US should remain in Iraq for at least a couple more years until stability is established. Thanks for letting me know about it!
At 7:37 AM,
At 1:21 PM,
murder rape, burning corpse...
The U.S. Army will investigate charges that American soldiers were involved in the killings of four Iraqi relatives, including a woman who had been raped, military officials said Friday. It's the sixth current inquiry into the alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by American troops.
Some of the five soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of assaulting in the March incident, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested. Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah.
The official told the AP the accused soldiers were from the same platoon as the two slain soldiers. The military has said one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded.
Now, I suppose Bruno is going to argue that Rumsfeld ordered the rape.
no sadness, no remorse? not only for the victims but for the perpetrators, for surely they are victims of the times. how do people come to kill and torture innocents? how can we forget, heal, and find a way to move on which is what we all surely must do. do people , any people maim for no reason or are we products of circumstance? somehow someway my only hope is that we come closer to a resolution thru the revelation of this madness. when soldiers w/mental disorders are put back into battle is this the result? i heard today, just now on msmtv, w/these investigations we should be prepared to hear about more and more atrosities.
some ray of hope that cannot go unmentioned in this thread on torture. today i have a ray of hope for my country the great and beautiful america i love so much. with tears in my eyes and hope in my heart aqnd a lump in my throat , with great relief there is still justice Ultimately, that’s why we have a Constitution that makes international treaties, once executed, part of the supreme law of the land – and an independent judiciary to interpret that law
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administration has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act . . . If I’m right about this, it's enormously significant.
thank you supreme court, thank you.
You are basically saying that many more than half of Iraqis watn the US out, but they don't think anything should be done about it. This makes no sense in the real world, although it is perfectly consistent with your "Iraq must fail" agenda.
I regularly read postings here but rarely comment. However this comment was so irrational I couldn't help myself.
Humans are not binary creatures with two settings, on or off for every situation. Disliking occupation does not translate into "I think they should all be killed and dragged through the streets".
It is perfectly reasonable for a majority to want US forces to leave, and a minority just shy of 50% to consider attacks justifiable. For Gods sake man, exercise some critical thinking!!!
At 8:15 AM,
"Humans are not binary creatures with two settings, on or off for every situation. Disliking occupation does not translate into "I think they should all be killed and dragged through the streets". "
LOL - where in the poll does it say "killed and dragged through the streets"? Quite an exaggerration there, BMC. And no, you're wrong - it makes no sense for Iraqis to want the US to leave, but not support the physical act of them being made to leave. Good god, man, you are almost as big an idiot as Bruno. Congrats!
At 9:34 AM,
it makes no sense for Iraqis to want the US to leave, but not support the physical act of them being made to leave.
you're right. but its a straw man argument. no one is saying iraqis that want them gone don't support the physical act of them leaving. they just may not support the physical act of killing them to do so. duh.
At 12:36 PM,
Ok - let's make this simple for you. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? YOU are saying that even though the poll says only 50% of Iraqis believe attacks on US troops are justified, a significantly higher number (let's just say 100% to make it easy for you) want the US to immediately exit Iraq. You cannot POSSIBLY deduce this from the poll, so stop editorializing the poll and stating your own baseless presumptions as facts. Have you even looked at the website?
"no one is saying iraqis that want them gone don't support the physical act of them leaving." WHAT? Look at the poll, moron. It addresses this exact issue. It asks, very simply, if attacks on coalition forces are justified. Basically, 50% say they are. There aren't reasons given for WHY they believe attacks are justified. You assume, incorrectly, that AT LEAST 50% believe attacks are justified because they want US troops to leave iraq immediately. But the poll doesn't address the WHY - it could have to do with a fanatical religious jihad, it could be simply nationalistic hatred of americans and foreigners, it could be because they believe the US is trying to "colonize" the country, it could be because the Americans brought the shiites into power, it could be because they hate kurds and Americans supported the kurds, it could be shiites aligned with Iran, it could be Saddamists, it could be for sport...who the hell knows why an individual might believe attacks are justified? It isn't necessarily because "US troops should leave Iraq immediately."
Now, you are stating that there is a whole, huge percentage of people that want troops out now, but do not believe attacks are justified? Again, apart from it being IMPOSSIBLE TO DEDUCE THIS from this poll that asks only if attacks are justified, it is an illogical contradiction. If someone does not believe attacks are justified, I feel confident in assuming that those individuals do not seek an immediate US exit - if they did, they would have said the attacks are justified. Understand?
If someone does not believe attacks are justified, I feel confident in assuming that those individuals do not seek an immediate US exit - if they did, they would have said the attacks are justified.
This is simply not true. Or perhaps this simply reflects how you would reacte? Most people's attitudes are much more nuanced than : a) I want americans to stay and b) I think we should kill americans to make them go.
There is an enormous middle ground between these two attitudes, most simply summed up as variations of the theme of : "I want the americans to leave but I wouldn't want them killed to make it happen".
Not everyone beleives that killing those who disagree with you is a solution, reasonable people can be convinced of the merits of an argument.
Besides this discussion is moot, the results of the poll are clear and says what it says, not what you would prefer it to say.
At 3:28 PM,
"Besides this discussion is moot, the results of the poll are clear and says what it says, not what you would prefer it to say." Exactly - so, again - it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT MORE THAN 50% WANT THE AMERICANS TO EXIT IMMEDIATELY. The poll does not address this.
Your errors in logic are two fold. First, you are assuming that an "attack" means "killing." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poll does not define "attack." An attack is much more broad than simply "killing."
Furthermore, you are saying that an individual can want something to happen, without supporting a way of making that thing happen. I have a hard time believing there are that many Iraqis who so desperately want the US to leave, and who also support the US military...becuase if they had a favorable impression of the US military, they wouldn't so vigorously seek their exit. understand?
At 3:36 PM,
At 4:05 PM,
no, lets make it simple for you. i want the republicans out of office, i want it really bad, i do not think it is justified to attack them to do so.
iraq is an educated civilized society, it is quite natural for people to not want to be occupied, and to be against occupation. to assume because some one does not approve of attacking the US military in iraq equals they want us to stay is a huge stretch. huge.
krypt? does your screaming indicate you are needing a little relaxation/down time...
here , a very fun fox news video that should calm your nerves, brought to you by the ever loverly
militaryspotdotcom
At 5:57 PM,
"iraq is an educated civilized society, it is quite natural for people to not want to be occupied"
Iraq had been under the thumb of a dictator. Media was entirely state controlled, and little information came in or went out. Do you really think Saddam allowed the criticism that you so freely sling at your political enemies? There was no questioning or critical thought, at least not anywhere close the degree people experience it in the United STates. Is this consistent with an educated, civilize society? I would argue no, the nuances in thought that you claim the majority of Iraqis possess could not possibly have developed over the last 3 war intensive years since the fall of saddam. Unless you have lived under that type of stifling cultural/political environment, you have NO IDEA how it affects the average person's thought process. Furthermore, the fact that there is such a tendency towards the use of violence to resolve political grievances in Iraq suggests, further, that it is not a quote unquote civilized, educated society. Civilized, educated people don't blow up outdoor markets to make their point that the US should just get out.
But, I hope you're right. Just like your push to get Republicans out of office, I hope Iraqi's start a sophisticated, non-violent campaign to create positive change in the country. They really are off to a good start in many ways. For example, an actual, basically fair election was conducted - 3 times. Now, if they can just get the reconciliation process going, and temper the violence things can get going - money will come in, reconstruction will take shape, and Iraq will become one of the few normal countries in that part of the world. I would suggest that, once those things are sorted out, start your civilized, educated campaign bring a war crimes cause of action against the current administration. Then, maybe, the real truth will come out.
At 8:15 PM,
First, you are assuming that an "attack" means "killing." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poll does not define "attack." An attack is much more broad than simply "killing."
Well at least we are making some progess. I can certainly agree with that comment.
Let me parse my words as cautiously as possible.
If 50% of people consider attacks on americans justified, is it possible that 1% of the population could wish for the Americans to leave, but not be willing to either take up arms, or have others take up arms to force the americans to leave?
Is it possible that a group, a mere 1 person out of every 100, could exist in Iraq with that attitude. Leave yes, attacks no, thus providing a slim majority?
At 9:01 AM,
At 9:48 AM,
"but not be willing to either take up arms, or have others take up arms to force the americans to leave?" That's not what the poll addressed. There is a huge difference between this and believing that attacks are "justified." An individual can very broadly and generally believe something is justified without considering the details and implications of what they are justifying. Another reason why I believe the question is more all-encompassing than you give it credit for. For instance, I believe the US overthrow of Saddam is justified. I think for the US to stay in Iraq for a few more years is justified. Does that mean I am going to join the army, or support every action taken by the US military? Of course not. I don't agree with what happened in Haditha. I don't agree with what happened at Abu Ghraib. It doesn't mean I don't believe the US is justified in this war. So I believe there are plenty of people who answered the poll who would argue that attacks are justified, without necessarily considering what each of those individual attacks on US forces mean, so it is much broader than "taking up arms" or "having others take up arms", as you have put it. On the other side, because the "attacks are justified" questions is so broad and nebulous, it accounts for ALL Iraqis who even very tenuously support the basic idea of getting US troops to leave. The question may have well simply been "do you approve of foreign troops on Iraqi soil...?" and you would have gotten the same numbers. I would have assumed they were much higher, considering all the complaining by certain individuals on this board. It appears, however, there is more support for the US presence than most of us would like to acknowledge.
At 9:53 AM,
You seem now to be accepting that attitudes are more nuanced and graded than your orginal comments would suggest.
Your comments were fairly general and in fact, I found little to disagree with in principle, other than your final conclusion. This seems to spring full blown and unrelated to your previous musings.
It appears, however, there is more support for the US presence than most of us would like to acknowledge.
I find it very hard to come to that conclusion based on the survey. Here is the actual article :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
and here is an excerpt of the key poll results :
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
After 3 years of occupation this is disastrous result. I mean, 82% strongly opposed to coalition troops? How could this possibly translate to "support"?
Wishful thinking is not going to reduce casualties and rebuild Iraq. We need a plan B, and quick.
At 12:31 PM,
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org:
"Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction, while just 36% say it is heading in the wrong direction. This represents a sharp upward movement from when the International Republican Institute asked this question in November 2005 and just 49% said that Iraq was headed in the right direction and 36% said the wrong direction. The only other time that IRI has found such a high number expressing such optimism was in April 2005—also just after an election—when 67% said the country was headed in the right direction and 20% the wrong direction.
Among the Shia and Kurds optimism is even higher. Seventy-six percent of Kurds and 84% of Shia say they think the country is headed in the right direction.
Sunnis, though, are overwhelmingly pessimistic. A remarkable 93% say the country is headed in the wrong direction. (Trendline data by ethnic group was not released by IRI.)"
Another world opinion poll further supports my position and DIRECTLY undermines your support for immediate withdrawal:
"Which of the following would you like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do after they take office?
Withdraw all US-led forces within six months.................35%
Kurd.......................13
Shia Arab..................22
Sunni Arab.................83
Other......................36
Gradually withdraw US-led forces according
to a two-year timeline.................35
Kurd.....................28
Shia Arab................49
Sunni Arab...............11
Other....................14
Only reduce US-led forces as the security situation
improves in Iraq. ...................29
Kurd.....................57
Shia Arab................29
Sunni Arab................4
Other....................46
(Refused/Don’t know).....................1
Kurd......................3
Shia Arab.................*
Sunni Arab................2
Other.....................5
[If Responded “Withdraw within six months” Q6, ask Q7, otherwise skip to Q8]
Q7. Which of the following reasons for withdrawing US-led forces is the most important to you? Which is the second most important reason to you?
It is offensive to me to have foreign forces in
my country..................20%"
Are you sure you want to keep playing this game of citing polls from World Public Opinion dot com.
At 5:09 PM,
here is the poll i am finding on that website. this is the first time i have gone there.
the only poll i am finding says gov endorses timeline for withdrawl, 87% (but we know they can't ask the master americans for this, they tried, aren't allowed.)
kurds,64
shia 90
sunni 94
Withdraw all US-led forces within six months/2 years
Kurd.....13/28 41%
Shia Arab....22/49 71%
Sunni Arab....11/83 94%
overall 70%
expectation if US withdraws in 6 months performance of iraqi state
willingness to cooperate inparliment
increase 74%
availablitty of services
increase 67%
amount of crime
decrease 64%
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.
Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”
btw, neat trick w/the 20% chose the answer "It is offensive to me to have foreign forces in
my country". that is becasue they only got to choose 1 answer. what were the other options? what did the other 80% say? did they answer perhaps "“The presence of US forces attracts more violent attacks and makes things worse,” also, note this question WAS NOT ask of the majority, only the 1/2 of the respondents that wanted the US to leave between 6 months and 2 years, the half that wanted them to leave w/in 6 months. so, of the 35% ,20% (more than half) said it was because they were offended, the others, the presents attracts more violent attacks, the rest Iraq can take care of itself” (2%), and “I do not like the way US forces have treated Iraqi civilians” (2%).
now, does that sound like only 20% of the people in iraq find the occupation offensive? no it does not. i am sure if the other negative options weren't their they would have chosen that one. for everysingle person who was ask the question wanted the occupation to leave.
you don't believe me? here, i'll copy it for you instead of cherry picking and twisting the information to get the answer you desire.
Sources of Urgency for Withdrawal
The major source of urgency for withdrawal is the feeling, especially among Sunnis, that it is offensive for their country to be occupied. A secondary reason is that US forces attract more attacks and make the violence worse.
The 35% of respondents who took the position in favor of the near-term exit of US forces from Iraq (six months) were asked: “Which of the following reasons for withdrawing US-led forces is the most important to you?” and given four options. The most commonly selected answer is: “It is offensive to me to have foreign forces in my country.” This was selected by 20% (of the total sample) overall, 52% of Sunnis, 11% of Shia and 7% of Kurds. The second most common answer is: “The presence of US forces attracts more violent attacks and makes things worse,” which was selected by 11% overall, 26% of Sunnis, 6% of Shia and 4% of Kurds. Far fewer chose the other two options: “It is no longer necessary to have US-led forces in Iraq: Iraq can take care of itself” (2%), and “I do not like the way US forces have treated Iraqi civilians” (2%)
neat trick, we're not that stupid, no wonder i disturb you, i keep showing you up and proving you spin and lie
At 6:06 PM,
Civilized, educated people don't blow up outdoor markets to make their point that the US should just get out.
"what would you suggest they do? have their elected officials ask the occupation for a timetable perhaps?"
I would suggest they put down their arms and start rebuilding the country they destroyed.
to make their point that the US should get out? that sounds like the requirement the US is making. are you suggesting that the soveriegn nation of iraq by asking the occupation to leave is not making the point they do not want an occupying force in their country. this 'they destryed' the way ' they destroyed fallujah' . iraq was not destroyed before we invaded btw.
At 10:44 PM,
"The 35% of respondents who took the position in favor of the near-term exit"...
However else you want to try to spin this, there is no getting away from this number that completely blows away your whole argument for immediate withdrawal. Clearly, a majority of Iraqis DO NOT support immediate withdrawal of US forces.
But again, feel free to use this poll as it totally exposes your lies. The 20% was included merely to counter arguments made by other posters that Iraqis do not want US troops in Iraq because they don't want a foreign entity on Iraqi soil. Obviously, only 20% of the 35% who do not want troops there do not want them there because they are foreign. Some don't want them there for other reasons - that's my point.
Nevertheless, it is hilarious that you continue to attempt to construe this poll as supporting you, when it clearly states that only 35% of ALL IRAQIS (much lower for shiites, and even lower for kurds and others) as supporting your position. It clearly does not...go ahead and find another one. There are plenty on your socialist websites that support immediate withdrawal.
At 10:48 PM,
At 2:36 AM,
Obviously, only 20% of the 35% who do not want troops there
no, once again... quoting from the article
This was selected by 20% (of the total sample) overall,
those aren't my words. that is 20% of the total amount polled. more than 1/2 of the 35% who wanted immediate withdrawl. also note if there had not bee a more dangerous option ( “The presence of US forces attracts more violent attacks and makes things worse,” ) all of those asked most likely agree they do not like the presents of foriegn troops, else they wouldn't be in the group that wants immediate withdrawl.
there is no getting away from this number that completely blows away your whole argument for immediate withdrawal.
no, it absolutely does not. iraqi's are not the only people in this war, not the only people affected by this war. clearly iraqi's want a timetable, americans do to. a vast majority. even if 100% of iraqis wanted us there i still do not think it is our job to enforce , manipulate, 'liberate' iraq. so, do americans have any say? does our voice matter?
Saddam, and now his offspring, have destroyed Iraq in ways that the US never could.
the occupation has destroyed iraq in ways sadam never did.
At 2:44 AM,
Saddam, and now his offspring, have destroyed Iraq in ways that the US never could.
al qaeda was not in iraq before we brought the 'war on terror' there. let's not forget we brought the 9/11 mindset, and battlefield , to iraq. much better to battle them in the ME. how gracious of us, we could have fought them in afghanistan, but there was no oil there. iraq was not the hell hole it is now before the invasion. we did what 7/8 years of war w/iran could never do. so, what do you think will happen when we invade iran? do you think the shias will really be on our side?
[Kryptonite] “Bruno, I have NEVER cited Bill Oreilly in any of my posts. Another lie.”
Again, Kryptonite, you could benefit from a little comprehension training. I never said you quoted him. I said that your attitudes ARE A LOT LIKE HIS, and by extension, like the rest of the far right nutjobs in the US. This is based on extensive exposure to your nauseating comments. These and other comments by you give me that impression, based on your: (1) blaming the victims (2) Demonisation of Iraqis (3) feelings of smug superiority (4) feeling that Iraqis are getting what they ‘deserve’ as their country burns down around them.
These previous comments by yourself will do nicely to illuminate why I say what I say:
[kryptonite] “like you said though, although weak, iraq was truly irrational and unpredicatable, which is the best way to get on america's bad side.”
In other words, they deserved being invaded because they were “irrational” – according to you, and other far right pundits that view Iraqis as “irrational”.
[kryptonite] “No, we just didn't anticipate that Iraqis would loot their own priceless cultural artifacts. Turns out, that was just the tip of the iceberg with respect to forthcoming unpredictable and irrational behavior.”
In other words you are blaming the victims, and more, you are stating that their behaviour is irrational and crazy – just like far right nutjobs like O’ Reilly.
[kryptonite] “Never thought they'd destroy their own country like this...”
More blaming the victims for the chaos Iraq has been hurled into thanks to the invasion.
[kryptonite] “I'll even tell you a secret - we don't really want to be there. We never have, especially when there are people like you who have no appreciation for what we are trying to do.”
Hmm. More blaming of the victims and reviling of the victims … just like O’ Reilly before his “bomb the living daylights” statement.
[Kryptonite] “ … if we chose, we could just incinerate your cities; That our military is much stronger than yours; that our technology is better; and that our soldiers have shown more heart in a few years than you'll ever know in a life time. […] There's a word for people like you - uncivilized.”
Let’s see … a feeling of superiority over the “untermenschen” coupled with a demonisation of Iraqis as uncivilised peoples … just like the far right nutjobs like O’ Reilly.
[kryptonite] “But, as they say, "people get the country they deserve." I now understand what that means, based on your responses.”
So, when Iraqis cry foul at the hell they are going through, according to you they “deserve it”? Methinks I can rest my case on this matter. Your attitudes are a lot like the attitudes of the O’ Reilly whackjobs, and I feel fully justified in lumping you together with him.
[kryptonite] “"The FACTS that I presented are gleaned exactly from such primary sources." Okay...then POST THE PRIMARY SOURCE.”
God, you are dumb. So, if a reporter reports verbatim what is said at a interview / meeting, that is NOT reporting the primary source? OK, well, next time you quote GW Bush, you better get him online in person, otherwise you are just making things up … on planet Kryptonite, that is.
[kryptonite] “But again, you have editorialized what the poll means - you suggest that, even though ONLY HALF of Iraqis believe attacks on Coalition forces are justified many, many more want the US out of Iraq immediately.”
Wrong. I (and the poll) say that 87% of Iraqis want you on a timetable out of there. That’s 87% of Iraqis that don’t want you in Iraq. That’s around 21 million Iraqis that want you out. That’s 21 million Iraqis that the US government has repeatedly said “up yours!” to, given that the Bush mafia refuses point-blank to set a timetable.
But as I said, Iraqis are *incredibly generous*, since only 47% of them are willing to see you die for that to happen. Please, DO keep quoting this poll. Spread it around as far as you can. Tell all the other little warmonger apelings that 21 million Iraqis want you on a timetable out and that 12 million Iraqis want you to die for that to happen.
If you think that this “supports” your arguments, then this just goes to prove what a retard you are.
Again, what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to kill 47% of Iraqis?
Are you going to kill 87% of Iraqis?
You can’t seem to answer this small question, for some reason.
Annie –
What can one say about that latest horrible news about the rape? Get the troops out and back to their own country. That’s the only solution. I can only imagine how this news will affect the % of Iraqis that are willing to kill to make the US leave.
BTW, I notice that the fat fish Kryptonite is thrashing like mad in our net, trying to find a way out. He has tried to reframe the argument in terms of "immediate withdrawal" as opposed to the original "withdrawal timetable" that I quoted.
Your dishonest attempt is noted and duly scorned.
Your government's refusal to set a withdrawal timetable as per the wishes of 9 / 10 Iraqis is also noted.
The question isn't how many Iraqis want an immediate withdrawal, it's how many Iraqis want you in their country period. And given that 87% of Iraqis want a withdrawal timetable, I think it's safe to say that 87% of Iraqis don't want you there.
Period.
The question isn't how
At 7:56 AM,
Wrong. I (and the poll) say that 87% of Iraqis want you on a timetable out of there."
LOL...That's good, Bruno. But there is a big difference between a timetable and wanting the US out of Iraq immediately. Only 35% want the US out within 6 months. This completely tears you apart, I know, since you have argued from the beginning that Iraqis want the US out immediately. EVERYONE WANTS A TIMETABLE, MORON. Who would want the US to be in Iraq permanently? Not me. Not the Iraqis. I can't believe only 87% want a timetable - why not 100%?...that's ridiculous. HA HA HA HA HA...game over, you lose. Aren't you mad that you ever even cited that poll now?
"that is 20% of the total amount polled." HA HA HA HA HA...Oh, my god - that is funny. First off, look at the questionnaire - only those who answer that they would like the US to withdrawal within 6 months are asked to answer the question about WHY they want the US to withdrawal within 6 months. (from the questionnaire: [If Responded “Withdraw within six months” Q6, ask Q7, otherwise skip to Q8]...Q7. Which of the following reasons for withdrawing US-led forces is the most important to you?")
LOL. Someone didn't pass 4th grad math. Let's take you through a little math lesson. Let's say 100 people are polled, and 35 say they would like the US to withdrawal within 6 months. Of those 35 people, only 20% say its because they don't want foreign troops in Iraq. The other 80% who answered the first question are NOT EVEN ASDKED THE SECOND QUESTION. How much is 20% of 35? 7. ONLY 7 OUT OF 100 IRAQIS want the US to leave because they don't want foreign troops in Iraq. BOOM!!! That's the sound of your argument being blown clear away. CLEARLY, A MAJORITY OF IRAQIS DO NOT SEEK AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF US FORCES. This goes again EVERYTHING you guys have been saying since you started blogging here.
CLEARLY, A MAJORITY OF IRAQIS DO NOT SEEK AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF US FORCES.
That strictly speaking has not been the question though. I have to agree, you seem to be attempting to ham fistedly redefine the discussion, and I'm not even convinced the new position you've moved to is any more tenable than the last.
Can we agree, that 47% of respondents support attacks on American troops? Thats pretty uncontroversial and based directly on the survey, which I think you are quoting :
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme
These people could hardly be pro american occupation? Thus for a majority to want withdrawal, only another 4% are required (Bush won the election with 51% of the vote, lets remember!!), and we in any case have that in the 70% that want withdrawal.
You cannot argue that the Iraqis do not want american withdrawal, thats simply nonsense.
You could conclude that many iraqis are conflicted, and it's clear that a slim majority do not approve of attacks on americans, which is good but far from the ringing endorsement you seem to be reading into it.
Sorry. (shrugs)
At 10:14 AM,
BBC Breakning NEWS:
Veteran faces Iraq murder charges
A former US soldier has been arrested and charged with killing four Iraqi civilians after raping one of them, the US Justice Department said.
Prosecutors say Steven Green, 21, and other troops raped a young woman before killing her and three relatives in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad in March.
A military inquiry into the incident is the latest in a series into alleged abuses by US troops in Iraq.
Mr Green, a former army private, was arrested recently in North Carolina.
He faces a possible death penalty if convicted.
A statement from the US attorney in Kentucky says Mr Green is charged with going to a house near Mahmoudiya with three other people to rape a woman living in the house.
He allegedly shot and killed a man, a woman and a five-year-old girl and after raping another woman, he is alleged to have shot and killed her, the statement said.
THIS is who Kriptonyte and his friends are. This is what they would doing to all Iraqi people.
adnan
HIS is who Kriptonyte and his friends are. This is what they would doing to all Iraqi people.
I don't think that is the case. Many Americans are genuinely conflicted about this war, want the best for the Iraq people and think that occupation can deliver that.
What is especially hard for decent people who supported the war, is recognising what a misguided support it was.
Lets face it, under Saddam, Iraqis were kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered. Since the US removed him, people are still being kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered. Plus now they have no electricity, sewage treatment, or jobs. I'd call that a net loss.
Tough to have that on your tab:-(
At 10:51 AM,
"You cannot argue that the Iraqis do not want american withdrawal, that is simply nonsense." I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that, based on the poll, Iraqis do not want an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. Meaning, they do not want withdrawal within the next 6 months. This is a TOTAL contradiction to the far left's fundamental argument that Iraqis want the US out NOW.
"You could conclude that many iraqis are conflicted, and it's clear that a slim majority do not approve of attacks on americans, which is good but far from the ringing endorsement you seem to be reading into it."
Ringing endorsement? The Far Left has been telling us that Iraqis want the US out NOW. Based on the poll, Iraqis do NOT appear to be seeking an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. I am perfectly happy to accept the position that Iraqis want the US out EVENTUALLY, meaning two years.
I think "conflicted" is a perfectly acceptable assessment of the average Iraqis psyche when it comes to occupation and the insurgency. But the far left does not see this. They perceive everything as black and white - that america is evil, and iraqis are victims of american imperialism/oppression (completely ignoring, of course, the role sadam played in creating this whole mess). "Conflicted" is a far cry from the picture of Iraqis we get from people like Bruno and other far left commentators on this blog - that Iraqis are rabidly anti-american / anti-occuptation / and that they want the US out IMMEDIATELY.
At 10:54 AM,
At 11:07 AM,
"What is especially hard for decent people who supported the war, is recognising what a misguided support it was."
How can I be decent? I supported the war and support the current occupation. I am the devil.
I believe that, right now, there is a net loss because there is too much violence - the result of an ongoing insurgency and civil strife. Without the violence, reconstruction would have occurred and Iraq would be much improved today than in the days of saddam. So, i think the question needs to be, who is responsible for the violence? Although our mistakes and presence in Iraq might make some Iraqis angry and violent, the majority of the violence is CREATED by the insurgency, sectarian attacks, al-queda in Iraq - whoever. If you remove the troops, some of the violence might subside, because there would not be the anger because of foreign troops in the country. BUT, what would happen to the current Iraqi government, considered puppets by the insurgency? What would happen to the sectarian attacks - would they increase? What would Iran do? Who would confront the militias? There are an infinite number of special interests in Iraq all seeking to take advantage of a power vacuum that would exist when the US leaves. Again, some of those "special interests" are simply to get the US to leave, and they would be happy, but a vast number of other groups would emerge to fight for power.
So, from here we have a Net Loss from the days of Saddam. If the US leaves immediately, there will be an even GREATER Net loss from the days of Saddam. I think if the US and current Iraqi government are patient, and continue on this path, the violence will start to get under control, and reconstruction can begin - bringing water, electricity and all the other stuff that was "promised" and that the Iraqi people deserve.
"Conflicted" is a far cry from the picture of Iraqis we get from people like Bruno and other far left commentators on this blog
Well I'm just stating my own position as I see it based on the polls.
However, you do have to work hard not to conclude that a majority would like the US gone ASAP.
Given that 47% think attacks are justified, you only need to pick up 4% to get to a majority.
I'll give you that of the 70% that want withdrawal, 35% of that (half) will ,accept it occurring in the next two years. That indicates some seriously confused people, but it doesn't add up to support.
Plus a majority, 67% expect violence to decrease if the US leave!!!
Here is the conclusion of those who took the poll :
Thus, the presence of US troops may be perceived as an unwelcome presence that produces many undesirable side effects, but is still necessary for a period.
I'd agree with that, but the US clearly needs to be planning to leave, and ideally be gone in 12 months.
I think if the US and current Iraqi government are patient, and continue on this path ....
This is exactly the thinking that allowed Vietnam to drag on for years.
The US has blown it as a "neutral" party. They have become a participant, as evidenced by the regular stream of atrocities being committed by over extended, frightened and angry American troops.
The US has broken Iraq, but they cannot fix it. Someone else will have to do that.
At 11:44 AM,
"This is exactly the thinking that allowed Vietnam to drag on for years." Iraq is not Vietnam. There is currently no entity [viet cong] trying to establish a government that we are fighting against, unless you somehow can equivocate al-qaeda, saddam loyalists, or sadr's militia to communist vietnamese. The only group that has any substantial support from teh Iraqi population IS the current Iraqi government. The US must continue to support this government and the only way they can do that is by having some troops on the ground. Iraqi forces are getting up to speed and taking over operations. Before you know, Americans will not be needed to perform daily military operations.
"the regular stream of atrocities" - This is an exaggeration. There are only 120000 US troops in a country of 27 million people. There aren't nearly enough troops to create such a "regular stream of atrocities". Your average Iraqi rarely even sees an American soldier.
Also, do not make the mistake of ignoring the different feelings among different groups in Iraq. Significantly more Shiites and Kurds have a positive outlook on the future of Iraq than do the Sunnis.
Overall though, I think if more Iraqis believed that the US has "broken Iraq", more of them would have answered "yes" to a 6 months withdrawal.
Also, do not make the mistake of ignoring the different feelings among different groups in Iraq. Significantly more Shiites and Kurds have a positive outlook on the future of Iraq than do the Sunnis.
But we aren't talking about the future of Iraq, but about if a majority of Iraqis would prefer the US to withdraw.
I submit that if 47% of the population think attacks on americans ok, if a significant majority think your leaving will make things safer, then a majority want you out.
Certainly 35% within 6 months, but given that 47% think attacks a good idea, this is in effect 35% for immediate withdrawal.
The remaining 12% of our 47% falls into the "within 2 years" category, and this is a conflicted group. They want to have their cake and eat it, accepting attacks but wanting the US to stay at least 6 months.
This reads to me as 35% want the US out NOW. At least 12% want the US out ASAP, and another 23% spread across a continuum of 6 to 24 months. To my mind that reads as a majority (51%) want the US out within the next 10 months.
At 11:59 AM,
24,
I found this story at T.F. Boggs' site (http://boredsoldier.blogspot.com/) about Brigadier General Ali in Qayyarah. On the surface, it seems to be a very hopeful story, but I would appreciate an Iraqi take on this man. Is he really a good guy? If he is legit, perhaps there is more hope than we think.
mamaworecombatboots
At 12:10 PM,
jeez krypt you are such an idiot
20%+11%+2%+2% =35%
get it. 20% of(now read this part really slowly so your pea brain gets it, i will be quoting from the article "This was selected by 20% (of the total sample) overall"
if we ad it up 'your way(or the highway) then what response did the remaining 65% of the 35% polled answer? surely if it only represented 20% of the 35% we would need more data because they only would have sited 35% of the 35%. too complicated for you? oh, i know it is just a coincidence that only 35% of the 35% had their responses recorded.
twisting in the wind, seriously do you have any idea what a looser you sound like.
The Far Left has been telling us that Iraqis want the US out NOW.
could you provide any link or documentation of this?
the majority of the left (as opposed to the far right)
want the soldiers out NOW. some republicans also want the soldiers out NOW.many soldiers want us out NOW. it is widely reported 87% of iraqis want the occupation to leave, please, provide your link to the 'far left' (which term is a propaganda tool) you want far? its only on the right . provide the link, i dare you.
how disengenous to argue a point know one has maintained. putting words in your enemies mouth and then arguing against them? and then claiming you won the argument. one who laughs last laughs louder idiot
adnan, the article you sited did not mention how the soldiers burnt the body of the woman? or the news that they plotted for a week. i posted a movie up thread for krypto shown on fox news you may want to review. it is about gangs in the military, very disturbing. there are also many many instances of mentally ill soldiers who are not released from the military because they are so low in recruiting. when these soldiers do tour after tour after tour, let's just say make you rethink who 'terrorists' are
now krypt
"The Far Left has been telling us that Iraqis want the US out NOW."
prove it. it has to include the "NOW' or 'IMMEDIATE'
it also has to at least imply that "iraqis" means the vast majority.
you and your far left bs. i'll tell you who is far and extreme. try ann coulter, one of the heros on the right, the left has no one even close to the extremities on the right. and everyone knows it
At 12:35 PM,
No Mr. Kriptonyte not all Americans, but Americans like you, you who want to burn Iraqis in there homes. You. a murderer.
You who keep defending this war. You.
MSNBC.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former soldier charged in Iraq deaths
Case involves rape, murder of woman and three relatives
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:31 p.m. ET July 3, 2006
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Federal prosecutors charged a veteran of the Iraq war with murder and rape Monday following an investigation into the killing of an Iraqi woman and members of her family.
Steven D. Green, a 21-year-old former private first class who was discharged from the Army “due to a personality disorder,” appeared in a federal magistrate’s courtroom in Charlotte Monday.
The charges grew out of a military investigation involving up to five soldiers in the March rape and killing of the woman in Mahmoudiya and three of her relatives.
Prosecutors said Green and others entered the home of a family of Iraqi civilians, where he and others raped the woman before Green shot her and her relatives. According to an accompanying affidavit, photos taken by Army investigators showed a burned body of “what appears to be a woman with blankets thrown over her upper torso.”
FBI agents arrested Green on Friday in Marion, N.C., where he is being held without bond pending a transfer to Louisville, Ky.
Discharged before inquiry
The case is being handled by federal prosecutors there because Green, who served 11 months with the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., is no longer in the military. According to an affidavit filed with the criminal complaint, he was discharged “before this incident came to light. Green was discharged due to a personality disorder.”
He faces a possible death sentence if convicted of murder.
The affidavit, filed by FBI special agent Gregor Ahlers, said Green and three other soldiers from the 101st’s 502nd Infantry Regiment were working a traffic checkpoint in Mahmoudiya on March 12 when they conspired to rape a woman who lived nearby.
According to the affidavit’s account, the soldiers changed their clothes before going to the woman’s residence to avoid detection. Once there, the affidavit said, Green took three members of the family into a bedroom, after which shots were heard from inside.
“Green came to the bedroom door and told everyone, ’I just killed them. All are dead,”’ the affidavit said.
The affidavit is based on interviews conducted by the FBI and investigators at Fort Campbell with three unidentified soldiers assigned to Green’s platoon. One of the soldiers said he witnessed another soldier and Green rape the woman.
“After the rape, (the soldier) witnessed Green shoot the woman in the head two to three times,” the affidavit said.
Attempted cover-up alleged
Ahlers said in the affidavit that he also reviewed photos taken by Army investigators in Iraq of bodies found inside a burned house, including photos of an Iraqi man, woman and young girl who all appear to have died of gunshot wounds. He said he also reviewed a photo of a burned body of “what appears to be a woman with blankets thrown over her upper torso.”
An official familiar with details of the investigation in Iraq has told The Associated Press that a flammable liquid was used to burn the rape victim’s body in a cover-up attempt. U.S. officials have said they believed the victims were killed in sectarian violence.
On Friday, the U.S. military acknowledged that Maj. Gen. James Thurman, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged slaying of a family in Mahmoudiya.
Four members of the 502nd have had their weapons taken away and were confined to a U.S. base near Mahmoudiya, officials said.
The suspects belong to the same unit as two soldiers kidnapped and killed south of Baghdad last month, a military official said on condition of anonymity because the case was under way.
The military has said that one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded. The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one member of the platoon to reveal the rape-slaying on June 22.
According to the affidavit filed Monday, investigators learned of the March 12 attack during a combat stress debriefing that occurred around June 20.
Green will have a preliminary hearing and a detention hearing on July 10 in Charlotte, and will then be brought to Louisville, said Marisa Ford, chief of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Louisville.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13686528/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 MSNBC.com
Adnan
At 1:04 PM,
Let me repeat, no one is arguing that the US should just be in Iraq FOREVER. That's why I'm surprised that 13% of the combined poll actually seems to accept this. The critical element is TIMING. Two years is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for withdrawal. Even six months seems like a lot of time, considering the number of times I've been told by leftists that the US should leave IMMEDIATELY. It demonstrates that Iraqis are more patient and supportive (not necessarily pro-US) of the current progression than some would suggest, like the ridiculous mathematically challenged anonymous pundit who is fixated on whether or not 20% of Iraqis want the US out because they are foreign troops - ITS IRRELEVANT as the other "reasons" given are no more innocuous. The point is that ONLY 35% want the US out IMMEDIATELY (meaning less than 6 months). If you want to say a MAJORITY want the US out within 2 YEARS, that is perfectly acceptable based on the poll. No disagreement coming from me. BUT if you say that the people who want the US out NOW are the same as the people who want to wait 6 months and are the same as those willing to wait 2 years then, well, that doesn't make sense. I wouldn't lump all those people together as you appear to be doing here.
Also, come on...there are several questions on this poll that clearly show optimism and a sense that things are getting better among Iraqis. Plus, if you remove the Sunni element from the polls, the rest of Iraq has a MUCH more positive outlook.
You guys really should be attacking the poll's credibility, rather than trying to figure the numbers to fit your agenda. They simply do not. Just find another poll. This one does not help you.
You guys really should be attacking the poll's credibility, rather than trying to figure the numbers to fit your agenda. They simply do not. Just find another poll. This one does not help you.
The poll seems entirely credible, just your reading of it seems terribly optimistic.
I'm not looking for it to "help me", but to inform me. I see some optimisim for the future, and that is great. However, I also see a clear majority desire for americans to get out, and soon.
At 2:06 PM,
Fair enough. "Soon" to me means two years. I believe violence will substantially drop over the next year, leaving more or less a year of dedicated reconstruction. Leaving right now might help a little in the short term, but it will just allow for another dictator to take over. A commitment to reconciliation, coexistence, modernism and non-violent conflict resolution must start to take shape before the US exits. It is already happening, people like Bruno and Anonymous Math Dummy, along with the insurgents they support are getting weaker everyday. Its very funny - as Bruno doesn't have nearly the same vitriol that he used to, as his ridiculous schemes are slowly, but surely, identified and explosed.
At 2:09 PM,
Fair enough. "Soon" to me means two years. I believe violence will substantially drop over the next year, leaving more or less a year of dedicated reconstruction. Leaving right now might help a little in the short term, but it will just allow for another dictator to take over. A commitment to reconciliation, coexistence, modernism and non-violent conflict resolution must start to take shape before the US exits. It is already happening, as people like Bruno and Anonymous Math Dummy, along with the insurgents they support are getting weaker everyday. Its very funny - as Bruno doesn't have nearly the same vitriol that he used to, as his ridiculous schemes are slowly, but surely, identified and explosed.
At 5:14 PM,
earth to krypt
Let me repeat, no one is arguing that the US should just be in Iraq FOREVER. That's why I'm surprised that 13% of the combined poll actually seems to accept this.
just thought you'ld slip in a little lie like no one is paying attention? did you notice the heading at the top of the page that said(loud and clear)
WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, but Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq
here's a quote
Asked whether “the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq or to remove all its military forces once Iraq is stabilized,” 80% overall assume that the US plans to remain permanently, including 79% of Shia, 92% of Sunnis and 67% of Kurds. Only small minorities believe that the US plans “to remove all its military forces once Iraq is stabilized” (overall 18%, Shia 21%, Sunni 7%, Kurds 28%)."
while i fully agree no one is arguing iraq should be in iraq forever, let me be very clear, these guys lie.
do you think they are going to say "hey, we aren't ever leaving!" since when has the secret administration told us anything, oh yeah, like when they announced they didn't have to follow the geneva protecal and could torture 'illegal combatants'. all the while saying 'we don't torture'
we didn't just build that monsterous 'embassy' in the middle of town to ..... leave. it bigger than many of the towns i've lived in. just becasue you call it an embassy doesn't mean its not the headquarters of the master in iraq. go ahead, call it an embassy if you want.
get w/the program, we don't care about iraq any more, we are moving on to iran, and we need our new bases in iraq to fight our new war. at the end of two years it will be another 2 years, we will never leave until the americans change the powers in congress which they probably can't because the republicans control the voting machines which are easily hackable.
when i hosted 2 iraqi women at my home thru the state department on some womens guest program i ask them 'do you think we will ever leave?" they both looked right at me and said, no. this was over a year ago. they also said to me, iraqi's aren't stupid.
i am concerned about TAI. i'm outta here for awhile
here's a link for your consideration...
information battleship
"– The Air Force Office of Scientific Research recently began funding a new research area that includes a study of blogs. Blog research may provide information analysts and warfighters with invaluable help in fighting the war on terrorism.
Dr. Brian E. Ulicny, senior scientist, and Dr. Mieczyslaw M. Kokar, president, Versatile Information Systems Inc., Framingham, Mass., will receive approximately $450,000 in funding for the 3-year project entitled “Automated Ontologically-Based Link Analysis of International Web Logs for the Timely Discovery of Relevant and Credible Information.” "
At 6:25 PM,
"while i fully agree no one is arguing iraq should be in iraq forever, let me be very clear, these guys lie."
[sigh] why are you so stupid, anonymous? who is lying now? who are "these guys"? again, there is no way to practically apply your complaints about the current US administration to help solve the current problem of violence in Iraq. again, if you think the US military should be removed from iraq immediately, just say so. The majority of iraqis disagree with you.
At 6:34 PM,
Anonymous at 5:14
Why shouldn't organizations (even air force)study blogs, or do you really think that only western governmental organizations study/want to study blogs?
Why do you yourself read blogs or write commentary on blog(s)?
Often blogs have better informations than reporters. And if I would rely only on newspapers I wouldn't know what some of Iraqis think about war, universe and everything ;-))
At 6:56 PM, Lynnette in Minnesota
Strategy Page:
"July 3, 2006: While the suicide bomb attacks against Shia Arabs get lots of attention, hardly any notice is paid to the increasing number of smaller attacks against the Sunni Arab community. As a result, there is growing panic among Sunni Arabs. This has reached the point where even Osama bin Laden, in one of his latest taped messages, calls for the Islamic world to come to the rescue of Iraqi Sunni Arabs. Similarly, elected Iraqi Sunni Arab politicians are refusing to participate in the government unless the violence against them is halted, or at least reduced. The Kurds, and especially the Shia Arabs, after decades of Sunni Arab terror, are in payback mode. Big time. But since this terror largely involves cars or trucks loaded with gunmen, not suicide bombers, it is only really noticed by the Sunni Arab victims. And on the streets of Baghdad, and other Sunni Arab towns, the terror is there. You can feel it. And it does not appear to be going away, no matter how diligently Sunni Arab leaders negotiate for some kind of amnesty. The government is offering amnesty, but on the street, vengeful Kurdish and Shia Arab death squads continue taking revenge."
[Kryptonite] “But there is a big difference between a timetable and wanting the US out of Iraq immediately. […] This completely tears you apart, I know, since you have argued from the beginning that Iraqis want the US out immediately.”
Wrong, I never said that.
Again, Kryptonite, when you are asked for evidence of a person’s statements you are expected to provide it, in order to maintain any shred of credibility, particularly when you are basing your argument on those statements. Again, Kryppie, you are fabricating things unless you can provide the goods.
[Kryptonite] “EVERYONE WANTS A TIMETABLE, MORON.”
Alright, so then let’s recap, in point form, so that even you can understand.
(1) Iraqis want a timetable for the US to leave.
(2) Americans want a timetable for the US to leave.
(3) The Resistance has said it would stop fighting if the US agrees to a withdrawal timetable.
Question: why then is Rumsfeld making statements like this:
Rumsfeld Says U.S. Won't Set Iraq Exit as AP Cites Sunni Offer
Bloomberg - New York, Jun 29 2006
“ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about a report that Sunni insurgents have made a conditional offer to halt attacks in Iraq, said the U.S. won't set a timetable for withdrawing troops from the country. The Associated Press today said 11 Sunni insurgent groups offered to stop attacks on U.S.-led military forces in Iraq if the Iraqi government and President George W. Bush set a two-year deadline for withdrawing all foreign troops.” //end
In other words, everybody wants a timetable - except for that the US doesn’t - and screw the Iraqi people’s opinion, right? The truth is that the US is supposedly in Iraq to “stop the fighting” – fighting which is explicitly against US presence. You ARE the problem.
Again, you seem awfully reluctant to answer what should be done about the 12 million Iraqis that want attacks on your troops. Why is this, Kryppie?
LOL!
Our little Kryptonite seems to have spun himself into a big knotted ball.
I can just see Kryptonite on the far right nutjob sites spreading the good news:
“Good news everybody! There are 12 million Iraqis that want our heads on a stick! There are 21 million Iraqis who want a withdrawal timetable. But we’re not withdrawing. We’re not even setting a timetable for withdrawing! We’re going to die there for years to come! Hurrah! ”
Who’s the moron now, moron?
Oh, and don’t think I never saw you slip this in:
[kryptonite] “Let me repeat, no one is arguing that the US should just be in Iraq FOREVER.”
Zinni on Iraq: ‘We’re not withdrawing’
By Gordon Lubold - Times staff writer - May 10, 2006
" Anthony Zinni, the four-star who commanded U.S. Central Command before retiring in 2000, said when the U.S. commits forces to a country now, it means a long-term commitment. Iraq is no different. “It isn’t World War I anymore; we don’t come home anymore,” he said. Zinni said he doesn’t rule out a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq at some point — he insists that shouldn’t happen now anyway — but the idea that the situation in Iraq will change enough to allow all U.S. troops to ultimately go home is simply wrong.
“We’re not withdrawing,” he said."
These comments are amply supported by the stance on the ground where the US is pouring concrete into their permanent bases as fast as they can bring it up. It’s corroborated by Don Rumsfeld’s stance on no withdrawal. It’s preceded by the stink tank PNAC’s writings on Iraq which called for permanent US bases in Iraq as long ago as 2001. The same Neocon PNAC whose members are now in control of Iraq today.
12 million Iraqis.
What are you going to do about them?
Kryppie goes down in a ball of flames again …
At 10:18 AM,
"Who’s the moron now?"
LOL. You're still the moron, Bruno. You shouldn't ask that question if you don't want an answer.
"Good news everybody! There are 12 million Iraqis that want our heads on a stick!"
Bruno, you stupid socialist, I already had this conversation with bmcworldcitizen. In summary, since you apparently cannot read well, there is a huge difference in "wanting our heads on a stick" and believing attacks are justified. I'm not going to rewrite everything.
You've lumped everyone who believes attacks are justified into the "wanting our heads on a stick" characterization. However, as I explained, there are a range of characterizations among those not content with the current reconciliation and reconstruction effort. Many, i'm sure, want our heads on a stick, but there are many who are also very misguided, and do not have access accurate information that would allow them to join in the reconstruction.
At 1:56 PM,
Bruno, you stupid socialist
well krippie, we know how you feel about bruno, now that you are finished calling him names, what did you think of the way he decimated your 'everybody wants a timetable moron' speel?
what, rummys words aren't good enough for you, cat got your tongue.
ella Why shouldn't organizations (even air force)study blogs, or do you really think that only western governmental organizations study/want to study blogs?
excellent, i'm so glad you responded like this.
as a reminder here's what i said
"here's a link for your consideration...
information battleship"
the term information battleship was a term used in the article, i didn't coin it.
i believe your response perfectly reflects how people make assumptions based on their own agenda. i say something, you counter and question it and defend it? i get it. i get you.
At 3:22 PM,
Anonymous, you stupid socialists - you are not hearing me. I know you are listening, but apparently you and Bruno are too busy making out in the back of one of Sadam's bentley's to identify what my point actually is.
So what if "Rummy" wants bases in Iraq? That has nothing to do with my argument. You read the post, my point simply is that the majority of Iraqis do not want the US to leave IMMEDIATELY. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree that most Iraqis do not want permanent bases in Iraq. I do not want permanent bases in Iraq. You are saying Rumsfeld wants permanent bases in Iraq. I have heard this from other left wing information sources, but not from any mainstream newspapers or news programs. I am not denying or confirming that Rumsfeld wants this - I have no idea.
Understand, stupid socialist?
At 5:45 PM,
Understand, stupid socialist?
you crack me up, coward.
you might want to rethink your name calling. not only am i a capitalist, i'm a damn successful one.
not only that, i don't consider being called a socialist an insult. but i'm not one, i probably have a hell of a lot more $$$ than you. also my own boss. i'm freeeee lol. but go ahead call me a socialist.. i don't mind.
buy stupid, hmm thats pretty amusing from a guy who thinks 20%+11%+2%+2% =100% lol, you look more and more like the fool you are all the time. maybe you should take ellas mothers advice(was it ella?) and shut your little ignorant trap instead of advertising how clueless you are. ha!
this is too easy, can someone send in the back up, or all they all out celebrating the fireworks.
At 5:52 PM,
too busy making out in the back of one of Sadam's bentley's to identify what my point actually is.
eath to idiot, your point is claiming you won an argument no one is making that you invented while not addressing the point the original poster made that you chose to answer w/your strawman that you are now claiming was the point but was only your point and you keep coming back to it because you are too much of a coward to face.... the truth.
looser
hey bruno, i don't know where sadams bently is stored but i have my own mercedes if you want ot take a spin around the block, zrypt can fantasize about all the you know what he hasn't had since the beginning of time because everyone knows he needs
viagra just like his hero rush. he makes up for it by making people address him w/what he doesn't have.... down there.lol
At 6:08 PM,
"looser" - LOL. I would learn how to spell this word before you start throwing it around. For such a successful "capitalist", you sure are lacking in the intelligence department. Now, you seriously want to compare bank accounts? What kind of pathetic retard says things like this? LOL. Nice response though. I know whenever I lose an argument, I start telling people how much money I have...One sure way to get others on your side. Man, you are funny.
At 8:27 PM,
I know whenever I lose an argument, I start telling people how much money I have..
ouch, does the whole town know already? really, i wouldn't know, i've never told anyone how much money i have. i don't even know how much money i have. that's the luxury of having enough of it.
btw, are you still bragging about winning the argument no one but yourself was having? hows that sound of one hand clapping?
i'm at a loss, i was to loose who my oo's when i spelled loser. hey, loser, thanks for the tip
At 8:44 PM,
you sure are lacking in the intelligence department. Now, you seriously want to compare bank accounts? What kind of pathetic retard says things like this?
more like what kind of loser coward makes up things like this. better brush up on the ol reading comprehension there coward before you start lecturing about lacking in the intellegence department.
btw, feel free to copy and paste a quote to back up your newly invented argument you are going to make so you can claim you 'won'
i would like to acknowledge your vivid imagination , 'semi creativity ', and gall (albeit limited since it is all thru the keyboard). its impossible to make up in spin what you lack in truthiness but all your 'efforts'
do not go unnoticed.thats about as much as a compliment as i can muster for you. i cannot come close to 'retard'. cute effort. the pathetic is a rip off from me, i called you that numerous times in an earlier thread (the 'gutlesskrypt refuses to tell you why sadam was a threat to the US thread').
At 10:06 PM,
"its impossible to make up in spin what you lack in truthiness but all your 'efforts'..."
HA HA HA...LOL...LMAO..."truthiness"?...."TRUTHINESS"? - god, you are dumb...
Let's just replay what you said about how much money you have, since you seem to have amnesia:
"i probably have a hell of a lot more $$$ than you."
Again, what kind of low-self esteem loser tries to compare incomes on a blog? You have officially taken the cake anonymous, exceeding even Bruno in ineptitude and stubborn ignorance.
At 3:45 AM,
truthiness
Truthiness is the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination. Stephen Colbert created this definition of the word during the first episode (October 17, 2005) of his satirical television program The Colbert Report, as the subject of a segment called "The Wørd."
By using the term as part of his satirical routine, Colbert sought to critique the tendency to rely upon "truthiness," and its use as an appeal to emotion in contemporary socio-political discourse. He particularly applied it to President Bush's modus operandi in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and in deciding to invade Iraq.
you're right to laugh at truthiness... it is a little joke on you, idiot . one who laughs last....
twice you claim i want to compare $! no, i was merely taking a wild truthie guess ;) just like you were when you called me a socialist.
At 3:49 AM,
Eyewitness testimony about US rape, murder of Iraqi family
In a dispatch posted at 11:55pm Makkah time Saturday night, Mafkarat al-Islam submitted its correspondents' in-depth report on the rape and murder case in March that the American military have now been compelled to investigate.
Mafkarat al-Islam noted that the number of rapes of Iraqi women committed by US occupation troops is already legion and continues to climb. Many women have been victimized within Abu Ghurayb and the other prisons; while many others have fallen prey to the rapists in American uniform who prowl the large prison that is occupied Iraq.
But there is one case of rape that has come to the surface in recent days, which stands out for a savagery and brutality that goes beyond all bounds.
On an afternoon in March 2006, a force of 10 to 15 American troops raided the home of Qasim Hamzah Rashid al-Janabi, who was born in 1970 and who worked as a guard at a state-owned potato storehouse. Al-Janabi lived with his wife, Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, and their four children - ‘Abir (born 1991), Hadil (born 1999), Muhammad (1998), and Ahmad (1996).
The Americans took Qasim, his wife, and their daughter Hadil and put them in one room of their house. The boys Ahmad and Muhammad were at school since the time the Americans invaded the home was about 2pm. The Americans shot Qasim, his wife, and their daughter in that room. They pumped four bullets into Qasim's head and five bullets in to Fakhriyah's abdomen and lower abdomen. Hadil was shot in the head and shoulder.
After that, the Americans took ‘Abir into the next room and surrounded her in one corner of the house. There they stripped her, and then the 10 Americans took turns raping her. They then struck her on the head with a sharp instrument - according to the forensic medical report - knocking her unconscious - and smothered her with a cushion until she was dead. Then they set fire to her body.
The neighbor of the martyred family told the correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam:
"At 2pm a force of Americans raided the home of the martyr Qasim, God rest his soul. They surrounded him and I heard the sound of gunfire. Then the gunfire fell silent. An hour later I saw clouds of smoke rising from the room and then the occupation troops came quickly out of the house. They surrounded the area together with Shi‘i ‘Iraqi National Guard' forces, and they told us that terrorists from al-Qa‘idah had entered the house and killed them all. They wouldn't let any of us into the house. But I told one of the ‘National Guard' soldiers that I was their neighbor and that I wanted to see them so that I could tell al-Hajj Abu al-Qasim the news about his son and his son's family, so one of the soldiers agreed to let me enter.
"So I went into the house and found in the first room the late Qasim and his wife and Hadil. Their bodies were swimming in blood. Their blood had spewed out of their bodies with such force that it had flowed out from under the door of the room. I turned them over but there was no response; their lives were already gone."
The neighbor continued his account: "Then I went into ‘Abir's room. Fire was coming out of her. Her head and her chest were on fire. She had been put in a pitiful position; they had lifted her white gown to her neck and torn her bra. Blood was flowing from between her legs even though she had died a quarter of an hour earlier, and in spite of the intensity of the fire in the room. She had died, may God rest her soul. I knew her from the first instant. I knew she had been raped since she had been turned on her face and the lower part of her body was raised while her hands and feet had been tied. By God, I couldn't control myself and broke into tears over her, but I quickly extinguished the fire burning from her head and chest. The fire had burned up her breasts, the hair on her head, and the flesh on her face. I covered her privates with a piece of cloth, God rest her soul. And at that moment, I thought to myself that if I go out talking and threatening, that they would arrest me, so I took control of myself and resolved to leave the house calmly so that I could be a witness to tell the story of this tragedy.
"After three hours the [American] occupation troops surrounded the house and told the people of the area that the family had been killed by terrorists because they were Shi‘ah. Nobody in town believed that story because Abu ‘Abir was known as one of the best people of the city, one of the noblest, and no Shi‘i, but a Sunni monotheist. Everyone doubted their story and so after the sunset prayers the occupation troops took the four bodies away to the American base. Then the next day they handed them over to the al-Mahmudiyah government hospital and told the hospital administration that terrorists had killed the family. That morning I went with relatives of the deceased to the hospital. We received the bodies and buried them, may God have mercy on them."
The neighbor went on: "Then we decided that we must not be silent so we asked the mujahideen to respond as quickly as possible. They responded with 30 attacks on the occupation in two days, bringing down more than 40 American soldiers. But our blood was still not cooled, so we decided to go to al-‘Arabiyah satellite TV to tell them the story since it is a station that broadcasts in Iraq. But al-‘Arabiyah paid no attention to us and said we were liars. They told us that their policy was to rely on official announcements issued by the American army, and that they were not able to get into a story over which they had no power.
This was told to us by the al-‘Arabiyah correspondent Ahmad as-Salih. So we went to local newspapers and they slammed the doors in our faces because we are Sunnis and the rape victim was a Sunni girl. But the Resistance fighters told us that God does not allow the blood of any Muslim to be lost, and they told us to patiently persevere and we would see such a punishment for the blood of ‘Abir and her family, for the violation of the honor of our sister, a punishment that would make people's hair stand on end.
"I personally wasn't surprised that Umm ‘Abir [‘Abir's mother] came to me on 9 March 2006 and asked that ‘Abir be allowed to spend the night with my daughters. She was afraid because of the way the occupation troops looked at her when she went out to feed the cows. I agreed to that because there was an occupation forces' command post just 15 meters from Qasim's house, God rest his soul. But frankly I thought it unlikely that anything would happen to the girl because she was only something like 16 and she was just a little girl. But I agreed and she spent one night at our place and then went back to her home in the morning. We had no idea that the occupation troops would carry out heir crime in broad daylight."
The neighbor concluded: "The occupation troops came last Friday - that is, one day before the Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent visited the scene of the crime - and asked the people of the area to exhume the body of ‘Abir to conduct tests on it. And they also asked me to provide eyewitness testimony and I will go anywhere to make sure that justice is served."
Mafkarat al-Islam was the first news agency to disclose the crime committed by US troops on that March day in al-Mahmudiyah.
[bruno channelling K] "Good news everybody! There are 12 million Iraqis that want our heads on a stick!"
[Kryptonite} “Bruno, you stupid socialist, I already had this conversation with bmcworldcitizen. In summary, since you apparently cannot read well, there is a huge difference in "wanting our heads on a stick" and believing attacks are justified.”
Kryptonite, you mouth-breathing moron, your ludicrously tangled ‘explanation’ of the facts to BMC was comedy gold. A joke. Really, what more must I say about your contortions to explain that despite 47% of Iraqis wanting attacks on US forces, and despite 87% wanting a withdrawal timetable … you spin the results to interpret that only 7% of Iraqis don’t want foreign troops in Iraq?
( Seriously, have you had any problems with date-rape before? You are just the sort of gormless jock who thinks that because the woman hasn’t actually blown his head off with a shotgun, it means she must ‘want it’. God, you are slow. )
Explain to me, then, in what way believing attacks on US forces are the right thing to do, does not translate into wanting you dead? It’s three years into the Occupation now, and thousands of US troops have been wiped out by Iraqi resistance. It’s clear that “attacks on US troops” are *killing* US troops. It’s clear that while they might not want your head on a stick specifically, a bunch of burnt corpses hanging from a bridge will do nicely as a substitute.
12 MILLION IRAQIS.
What are you going to do about them?
Why can’t you answer this question?
Your “immediate withdrawal” bullshit does absolutely nothing to cancel the fact that they want you out.
But the US does not intend to withdraw, except at the point of a gun.
[Kryptonite] “I am perfectly happy to accept the position that Iraqis want the US out EVENTUALLY, meaning two years.”
What are you, some kind of TERRORIST?
Some INSURGENT?
Rumsfeld has already rejected the “peace for two year withdrawal” proposal submitted by the Resistance. Yes, that’s the same Resistance who’s views are reflected by 87% of the Iraqi population. The same Resistance that reflects YOUR views. But the Neocons have made it clear that spending American blood by the bucket in order to keep Iraqis under the jackboot is fine, so long as it’s not their blood. They reject withdrawal.
But please, do keep spinning out the reasons for America to stay in Iraq.
If it weren’t for the fact that Iraqis are suffering under your occupation, I would be quite happy to see all the dumb-as-shit marines and other assorted wingnuts like yourself bleed their guts into the desert ad infinitum.
Anonymous –
Thanks for sticking around, it’s been fun reading your comments as you pummel ol’ Kryp. I’m thinking that he must be one of those paid “netvocates”, because nobody would be so daft as to come here day in day out getting embarrassed like this for free. He probably drags himself to work, his tattered ego ready for another flogging by whoever happens to be around. He should get a better paid job that involves less self-debasement and humiliation, like burger-flipper or fluffer. I mean, look at his arguments – reduced to picking out spelling errors. Netvocates should demand a refund.
I’m glad you are doing well for yourself.
Nothing wrong with making money.
Good luck there!
At 7:35 AM,
"12 MILLION IRAQIS. What are you going to do about them? Why can’t you answer this question?"
Until you come up with a more realistic number, I can't answer your question - that would be acknowledging the 12 million number as fact, which I do not. Try rephrasing the question, so as not to presume a false conclusion
At 2:05 PM,
bruno, you have to remember krypt is mathmatically impaired. he just loves that poll when he thinks it backs up his 'win' but cannot figure out that the glass half full approach translates into actual figures. hmmmm 26000000 people divided by 46%
one would assume he could just round it to 50%, and if the math was to tricky just 1/2 it. take away the zeros. 26million cut in half? no? then subtract a mill , no?
creativity he has. logic? not in line when they were passin out the brains. we could think of him like our little impaired pet.
At 9:43 PM,
[bruno] "12 MILLION IRAQIS. What are you going to do about them? Why can’t you answer this question?"
[kryptonite] “Until you come up with a more realistic number, I can't answer your question - that would be acknowledging the 12 million number as fact, which I do not.”
It looks as if our fish has been reeled out of the water, and is lying on the riverbank gasping its last breath as it flaps around pathetically. And look – it’s not even edible, it’s one of those half-rotten barbels, poisoned by long exposure to industrial effluvia. Yech, we’d better just whack its head off to end its misery, eh?
FACT: 47% of Iraqis say attacking US troops is justified.
FACT: Attacks on your troops are killing them.
FACT: Therefore, 47% of Iraqis like the idea of US troops dying in Iraq.
I took the Iraqi population as 25 million, you say 27 million. Either way, we are talking about 47% of that number, which translates to 11.75 or 12.69 million Iraqis that are of this opinion. There is no getting away from this number.
Now, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT THEM ?
[anon] “bruno, you have to remember krypt is mathmatically impaired. […] creativity he has. logic? not in line when they were passin out the brains. we could think of him like our little impaired pet.
Eeew.
Our pet?
Imagine all the fleas and other parasites that this pet would drag into our clean houses!
I mean, after rummaging (in vain) through the rubbish tip and pigswill all day in order to find that concept called “information” (which is vital in order to be taken seriously) one could imagine his grimy pelt would be the worse for the wear. But thankfully, he’s only a *virtual* pet, and his contagious diseases can’t spread further than this message board. He’s reduced to crowing about his “argument” which could well be described with “LMAO” …
At 7:14 AM,
Bruno, I love how 90% of your posts are void of any semblance of an actual point, but rather focus on lame little attempts to insult me and my goal to ensure that US troops stay in Iraq for at least 2 more years. I suppose I should take it as a compliment, for someone to be so fixated on the few words that I leave here, in comparison to your daily, long winded diatribes about american imperialism and other socialist garbage.
You have now backtracked, and made attempts to rephrase your insidious "they want your heads on a stick" comment. I appreciate the concession, however subtle or insignificant it actually is.
Are you really debating whether or not 12 million is close enough to 47% of Iraq's population? Who gives a fuck. We can say 13 million. Would that make you happier? You are missing the whole point, as usual. You imply that 12 million / 13 million "want you dead." As I explained in numerous posts above, this is not an accurate characterization of this group of people.
"FACT: 47% of Iraqis say attacking US troops is justified.
FACT: Attacks on your troops are killing them.
FACT: Therefore, 47% of Iraqis like the idea of US troops dying in Iraq."
Fact 1 - I agree that 47% SAY attacking US troops are justified.
Fact 2 - This is a lie. Only 3000 US troops have been killed in 3 years in a country where, according to you, 12 million people want their head on a stick. More often than not these troops are killed by vehicle accidents and friendly fire. Your insurgents are doing a very poor job of killing our troops.
My response to Fact 3: As explained, there are a range of people who would answer this question affirmatively, some who would, in fact, go out and plant IEDs, and others who would focus on blowing up Iraqi markets and mosques, and still others, on the fringe, who feel compelled to answer affirmatively out of fear, or still others who tacitly support the insurgency without actually engaging in any kind of actual support.
For what I assume are you agenda driven reasons, you have refused to acknowledge any of these nuances in the group of people who more or less support the insurgency. Until you do that, I can't tell you what I would suggest we do about it. Obviously, someone who tacitly supports the insurgency, such as yourself, should be dealt with differently than someone who supports the insurgency out of fear, who should also be dealt with differently from someone who blows up Iraqi markets, who should be dealt with differently from someone who plants IEDs.
At 1:02 PM,
lame little attempts to insult me
bruno, he's whinning about us insulting him, ouch. i like your analogy of the fish trashing around on the beachbetter than my pet theory. actually i was visualizing some rabid scrawny fles infested dog that keeps hovering in your yard begging for bones. yur right, thats hardly a pet. complaining about your 'little insults' is comical considering....
dummy
god damn lie by Bruno.
you idiot?
he's calm and you have a penis.
you are almost as big an idiot as Bruno.
moron
MORON.
They perceive everything as black and white - that america is evil
you know us Americans - we want to rape and kill anything we can get our hands on...
Anonymous Math Dummy
why are you so stupid,
Bruno, you stupid socialist
Anonymous, you stupid socialists
Understand, stupid socialist?
lacking in the intelligence department
- god, you are dumb...
low-self esteem loser
exceeding even Bruno in ineptitude and stubborn ignorance.
and did he really say this???
fixated on the few words that I leave here
i wish
More often than not these troops are killed by vehicle accidents and friendly fire.
plllease
At 2:33 PM,
At 11:47 PM,
More often than not these troops are killed by vehicle accidents and friendly fire.
plllease
it occurs to me this may read as if the please might have meant, yes please. i doesn't. it means please do not insult our intellegence.
on reflection, i have regret concerning my references to animals.
excuse me.
[bruno] “FACT: Attacks on your troops are killing them.”
[kryptonite] “Fact 2 - This is a lie. Only 3000 US troops have been killed”
Uh, sorry, did you say US troops were KILLED in ATTACKS? Yes, that’s what I thought. Thanks.
[bruno] “FACT: Therefore, 47% of Iraqis like the idea of US troops dying in Iraq."
[Kryptonite] “My response to Fact 3: As explained, there are a range of people who would answer this question affirmatively, some who would, in fact, go out and plant IEDs, and others who would focus on blowing up Iraqi markets and mosques, and still others, on the fringe, who feel compelled to answer affirmatively out of fear, or still others who tacitly support the insurgency without actually engaging in any kind of actual support.”
LMAO! Is this what you are reduced to? Trying to ‘spin’ the results of a poll that is so implacably opposed to your position? That cuts two ways, though.
If we really want to play “spin the poll” then:
I could point out that the 47% figure is too low, because many respondents were intimidated NOT to answer affirmatively.
I could point out that many Iraqis don’t want attacks on US troops not because they like you, but because US troops respond with indiscriminate fire that endangers the lives of all Iraqis around them.
I could point out that the support base for those who attack US troops is far larger than 47%, since even Iraqis who don’t approve of killing out of principle, will still support their cousins and husbands that are engaged in such activity, much like the US public broadly “supports the troops” even if it does not like the idea of Americans killing Iraqis.
I could point out that previous polls have largely supported the idea of violence against Americans, for example, after Al Sadr’s fight against the US, 81% of Iraqis said that as a result of his actions, their opinion of him had improved, which indicates that a much larger percentage of Iraqis approve of violent resistance in principle than the 47% would indicate.
I could point out that a large majority of those that did not approve of attacks on US forces did not do so because US forces are currently protecting their interests in Iraq – and yes, that means the hardline Shia theocrats. Wait until you cross them again, or until you hit Iran, and watch those numbers change.
I could point out that even if I BENT OVER BACKWARDS IN GENEROSITY TO YOU and conceded that the resistance drew support from only the 35% of the populace that want an immediate withdrawal, that still means that about 9 million Iraqis form the direct support base of the resistance with the bulk of the rest of the populace either passive or sympathetic to the aims of the resistance, which is to eject you from Iraq.
You do realise that guerrilla wars have dragged on for decades on a much smaller support base, right?
Like I said, if America is too stupid to realise that the game in Iraq has long since slipped out of your grasp, and if America wants to continue bleeding to death by a thousand cuts in the sands of Iraq … well, I’ll just sit back in the shade and laugh while I sip a pina colada.
That’s the course I expect you to take.
The dumb course.
It’s kinda tough on the Iraqis, though, not to mention the poor US National Guard troopies who thought they signed up to fight natural disasters, not to massacre the inhabitants of a country that never did anything to them. Which is why I keep repeating that a withdrawal is the best thing, not only for Iraq, but also for the US.
But you will “stick it out” and I’ll keep laughing.
Oh, well.
Anonymous –
“actually i was visualizing some rabid scrawny fleas infested dog that keeps hovering in your yard begging for bones.”
No, no, that’s exactly the right idea. Except for that I *like* dogs, even scrawny flea infested ones, and would never subject one to the treatment Kryppie is getting here. Interesting to note though, that he’s rather sparse on the facts, and primarily draws his ammunition from the links we provide. Almost as if he actually knew very little about the subject he has gone to such lengths to defend. Eh, well, I hope that the salary is worth the punctured ego.
At 6:08 AM,
Death by a thousand cuts? or would it be, death by 3000 cuts? Troop deaths are going down, not up, Bruno. And, compared to other wars to similar duration, the number of troop deaths is shockingly low. Particularly considering the claimed vibrancy your insurgency.
Spin? LOL. Are you capable of addressing a point without crying and trying to throw readers off topic?
I've already addressed all of your counterpoints in posts above, but you've failed to address any of mine. Critical thinking is not spin. I know you have difficulty distinguishing between the two.
And, of course, you could be right that those polled are in fear of retribution by US troops. That could explain the shockingly low support for the insurgency. This wouldn't serve your argument though - it would just undermine the poll which you claim supports your argument.
In any event, I've pretty much addressed all of your self-proclaimed "brilliant" counterpoints in posts above. Feel free to read, or don't. I'm simply not interested in repeating myself AGAIN.
The poll speaks for itself. Please, encourage all your fans to look at it! If they read it carefully, and I hope they do, they will see that Iraq is doing much better than you would like people to believe.
At 12:53 PM,
In any event, I've pretty much addressed all of your self-proclaimed "brilliant" counterpoints in posts above. Feel free to read, or don't. I'm simply not interested in repeating myself AGAIN.
uuuu, tail between the legs backing out of the door.
he's simpluy not interested!! well, i can certainly understand why. very thing is going along swimmingly. no escalations of violence lately. that tribe w/over a million memebers in iraq, one of its largest, the tribe the family that was recently gunned down and the young raped 15 yr old set on fire, that tribe, the one that recently said they were going to have revenge but of course it had nothing to do w/the kidnapping of 2 of our soldiers and the mutilated way their bodies were returned implying a sexual crime, nah, no big deal
Newsweek’s Baghdad bureau chief apparently doesn't agree w/you
Getting out of the Green Zone: Journalists in Iraq wrestle with controlled access to information, daily bombings, and earning the trust of local Iraqis.
U.S. Department of Defense
FOREIGN POLICY: Are Americans getting an accurate picture of what’s going on in Iraq?
Rod Nordland: It’s a lot worse over here [in Iraq] than is reported. The administration does a great job of managing the news. Just an example: There was a press conference here about [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi’s death, and somebody asked what role [U.S.] Special Forces played in finding Zarqawi. [The official] either denied any role or didn’t answer the question. Somebody pointed out that the president, half an hour earlier, had already acknowledged and thanked the Special Forces for their involvement. They are just not giving very much information here.
FP: The Bush administration often complains that the reporting out of Iraq is too negative, yet you say they are managing the news. What’s the real story?
RN: You can only manage the news to a certain degree. It is certainly hard to hide the fact that in the third year of this war, Iraqis are only getting electricity for about 5 to 10 percent of the day. Living conditions have gotten so much worse, violence is at an even higher tempo, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The administration has been successful to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made. They keep talking about how the Iraqi army is doing much better and taking over responsibilities, but for the most part that’s not true.
btw
At 8:56 PM,
At 9:11 AM,
do i get it? do i get you little version of the way its supposed to be or be percieved because we all know those missing billions that were supposed to go for infrastructer became diverted to whatever, and if, thats a big if, somebody had did a little planning after the illegal invasion things might be a whole other ballgame. btw your little timeline is off "First, stability must be established," what a joke, 3 years later. go read the manual. we secured all right, the oil infrastucture. now you are 'securing' the media for the 'perception' only you are failing w/this too.
FP: How often do you travel outside of the Green Zone?
RN: The restrictions on [journalists’] movements are very severe. It is extremely dangerous to move around anywhere in Iraq, but we do. We all have Iraqi staff who get around, and we go on trips arranged by the U.S. State Department as frequently as we can.
But the military has started censoring many [embedded reporting] arrangements. Before a journalist is allowed to go on an embed now, [the military] check[s] the work you have done previously. They want to know your slant on a story—they use the word slant—what you intend to write, and what you have written from embed trips before. If they don’t like what you have done before, they refuse to take you. There are cases where individual reporters have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with the work they had done on embed. But we get out among the Iraqi public a whole lot more than almost any American official, certainly more than military officials do.
FP: What other challenges do journalists in Iraq face besides security?
RN: Iraqi officials, now that they have their own government, have become extremely bureaucratic and difficult about giving interviews. They want you to do the interview request in a very formal way. In many cases, they ask for your questions in advance. It takes a very long time for them to agree to see people. Add to that the problems of movement and curfews, and it makes getting things done that much more difficult.
FP: The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad recently sent a cable to Washington detailing the dangerous situation under which its Iraqi employees work. Is the situation in the Green Zone as bad as the cable made it out to be?
RN: Yes, it is that bad. [The cable] didn’t come as a surprise to me, except that somebody in the embassy was courageous enough to outline the hardships in very frank detail, and the ambassador was honest enough to put his name to it. It is exactly what our own Iraqi staff has gone through for years now. As early as 2003, the Iraqis who work for us were not telling their family or friends that they worked for Americans. At the time, we thought it was a ridiculous precaution—a throwback to the Saddam era—but as time went on, they proved that they knew their society a lot better than we did.
FP: Where do you get information about the insurgency?
RN: There was a stage in the war when we could talk to insurgents and people representing insurgents. Now, it’s just too dangerous. There is no way to safely contact them. We talk to Sunni leaders who are in touch with at least the Iraqi insurgents, the distinction being that al Qaeda insurgents are mainly foreign terrorists. [Iraqi] groups have a political constituency among Sunni politicians and they are in touch. So we can and do talk to them frequently. In fact, so does the U.S. Embassy.
FP: Are journalists and the military seeing two different pictures in Iraq?
RN: Sometimes it’s hard to say. Many in the military are here on their second or third tour and they don’t want to feel that this is all a doomed enterprise. I’m not saying it is, but to some extent they are victims of their own propaganda. Two reasonable people can look at the same set of information and come to different conclusions. A good example: I traveled recently to Taji for the handover of a large swath of territory north of Baghdad to the Iraqi Army’s 9th Armored Division. This was meant to be a big milestone: an important chunk of territory that has lots of insurgent activity, given over completely to the control of the Iraqi Army. But when we spoke to the Iraqi Army officers, they said they didn’t have enough equipment. They are still completely dependent on the U.S. Army for their logistics, their meals, and a lot of their communications. The United States turned territory over to them, but they are not a functioning, independent army unit yet.
so hows team propaganda inforware psyops doingw/the blog program. i read the little blub in the wsj w/link to iraqthemodel, funny choice of names, the model, you wish. how very ingenious to have a story up to accompany the link about israel and all the good residents of bagdad that approve of the illegal invasion of palestine. you guys aren't really fooling anyone y'know. just your 'base' drinking the koolaid
At 12:01 PM,
"somebody had did a little planning after the illegal invasion things might be a whole other ballgame..."
For the invasion to be illegal, it must be adjudicated as illegal, and Bush and the rest of the administration thrown in jail for crimes against humanity. As far as I know, Bush is still walking around free. Therefore, the invasion was not "illegal".
But, this argument is really outdated, and only serves to further your political agenda without addressing the CURRENT issues affecting Iraq.
"we all know those missing billions that were supposed to go for infrastructer"
If you really believe this, bring a civil suit against the government for corrupt practices. Until you or someone else does that, and wins, the more accurate assumption is that money originally set aside for reconstruction was put on hold, or diverted to the military for purposes of fighting the so called insurgency. Plus, the government plays with these numbers all the time, so its impossible to know what money went where, unless you are one of those people controlling the distribution of funds.
Things are, more or less, going according to plan. Saddam was captured, and his sons were killed. The basic building blocks for democracy were established...the next phase is subduing the insurgency and further reducing the number of US troops in Iraq, and beginning reconstruction. Looks like Iraq will be well on its way in about 2 years. Unless, of course, the insurgency doesn't stop, then it will take longer.
At 5:51 PM,
"we all know those missing billions that were supposed to go for infrastructer"
If you really believe this
what are you talking about, thats from the report of the CPA, they just'lost' it. dude where have you been. it's officially missing.
Unless, of course, the insurgency doesn't stop, then it will take longer.
ya think? nothing a little kicking the anthill for learning purposes can't handle.
At 7:51 PM,
At 10:24 PM,
here
It will take a long time for the contracting mess in Iraq to be sorted out, if it ever is. Natsios says he warned about what might happen if standard procedures, known as Federal Acquisition Regulations, were ignored. "I told Bremer and the CPA that we were following federal law and we were going to implement according to federal statutes so there weren't any scandals. And there weren't any with USAID. But we were criticized for following federal law." Regarding firms like Custer Battles, Natsios added: "The contractors they chose weren't the best people. I heard lots of stories. The staff would come in and say a group of retired officers has set up a business and they got this contract, and they didn't have any qualifications for it."
Jim Mitchell, the spokesman for the special Iraqi inspector general, says his office is currently looking at 57 possible cases of corruption and fraud, and he expects more arrests in coming days. But only four contractors and officials have been arrested so far. That's not a lot, considering the potential size of the Iraq corruption problem. Maybe it really is a free-fraud zone.
Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
i don't know how to find the inspector generals report. there are over a million google hits for 8 billion missing from cpa
i guess that what you get when you hire kids w/no experience from the heritage foundation to run operations at the cpa, almost seems like it was designed to fail.
At 7:56 AM,
[kryptonite] “Death by a thousand cuts? or would it be, death by 3000 cuts? Troop deaths are going down, not up, Bruno.”
Of course troops deaths are going down. That’s my entire point – which you have in no way addressed – that the US has allied itself with the very forces (ex DGS and Badrists) that are creating sectarian conflict. The same sectarian conflict that is shifting the focus of the violence away from US troops to Iraqis.
[kryptonite] “And, compared to other wars to similar duration, the number of troop deaths is shockingly low.”
Not all deaths have been recorded, since a lot of the troops fighting in US uniform are not US nationals. And wrong again, the kill rate is quite high, given that the British lost “only” 2000 troops (the majority which were not UK nationals) the last time Iraqis revolted against a colonial force. Even higher are the 20 – 30 thousand maimed invaders sent back to parade their wounds as a walking (well…) advertisement for the glamour of invading small defenceless countries.
[kryptonite] “I've already addressed all of your counterpoints in posts above, but you've failed to address any of mine.”
Really?
Where did you address the question of the US incorporation of the Saddamite security apparatus into the new Iraqi intelligence service? I believe that was my very first point, and yet, somehow, mighty Kryppie cries at the very mention of it. Where did you address the fact that prior to this invasion no Iraqis wished you harm, yet now 12 million want your head on a stick? How does this contribute to the resolution of the “war on terror”?
Sad, sad, sad.
Keep posting,. Keep lying.
[Kryptonite] “And, of course, you could be right that those polled are in fear of retribution by US troops.”
Which just goes to show that you *admit* what assholes US troops are in Iraq, right now. THANKS. And it still doesn’t change the fact that 12 million Iraqis want your head on a stick, nor the fact that 87% want a withdrawal timetable that you refuse to set. All points which you have not “addressed”.
[Kryptonite] “For the invasion to be illegal, it must be adjudicated as illegal, and Bush and the rest of the administration thrown in jail for crimes against humanity. As far as I know, Bush is still walking around free.”
Oh, puhleeze! With the US, might makes right. Even IF the UN or the World Court found the US “guilty” who would enforce the order? The US has already ignored one such verdict. God, you really are thick. If the Nazis won WW2, who would have accused them of crimes against humanity? Who would have enforced such a verdict? You are taking a state of being and idiotically spinning this to be a vindication of a moral position. I guess bin Laden musta bin’ right since he is also walking around free … using YOUR logic.
[Kryptonite] “If you really believe this, bring a civil suit against the government for corrupt practices”
First, Bush gave official immunity to US companies in Iraq for whatever their crimes might be through Executive Order 13303. Second, you stupid moron, you can’t just sue somebody for a crime one party has done to another party unrelated to you. I mean, really now. The only entity that could institute a suit against the US legally speaking, is the Iraqi government – the same government that is dependent for its life on US military might. Uh, right, that’ll happen.
[kryptonite] “I asked for the CPA report, which you said existed.”
Nice evasion from the fact that the US looted Iraq. You want the original report, or will an airmailed certified copy do too? Maybe you need George Bush embalmed shipped with it, for that ‘extra’ credibility?
Since you advocate legal action so much, why doncha’ trying to sue the reporters of that (implied) false news for besmirching the fine name of the US and the Don Bush administration?
[anon] “uuuu, tail between the legs backing out of the door. he's simply not interested!!”
What a shame. I wanted to see in what new creative way he could shoot himself down and otherwise demonstrate his manifest idiocy. But maybe we’ll be lucky and witness some more drooling.
At 10:51 PM,
"Even IF the UN or the World Court found the US “guilty” who would enforce the order?"
Bruno, you are even dumber than I thought you were. You see, there is "illegality" and "immorality." Two separate things. There is no legal mechanism that would apply to the current Iraq situation. Therefore, as you indirectly have admitted, it is impossible for it to be deemed illegal. There would have to be proper jurisdiction, a judgement, and a formal rendering that the action was illegal, and of course, execution of that judgment. This has not occured, so to characterize US actions as illegal is false.
Immorality is something different. Immorality is, for example, lying by suggesting that the US has employed Saddam's former intelligence officers for the purposes of implementing Saddam style torturous intimidation practices. Another example of immorality would be to lie in suggesting that the US has encouraged Shiite militias to also implement Saddam style torturous intimidation practices for purposes of creating civil strife.
But, funny enough, in addition to being immoral, lying about things like this is also illegal. Such lies would be characterized as defamation, and you could be sued in an American court for making such comments. If I sue you, all I would have to do is prove that you said these things, which is all nicely laid out here on this blog, and I would win. The only way for you to defend yourself would be to prove that what you said was true. Unfortunately, all of your "evidence" that you spit out on these blogs is totally circumstantial hearsay in would be inadmissible in any court of law.
I would win. Your actions would then be considered "illegal."
[kryptonite] “There is no legal mechanism that would apply to the current Iraq situation. Therefore, as you indirectly have admitted, it is impossible for it to be deemed illegal. There would have to be proper jurisdiction, a judgement, and a formal rendering that the action was illegal, and of course, execution of that judgment. This has not occured, so to characterize US actions as illegal is false.”
Grasping at straws as you slip over the cliff, eh?
That’s like me saying I can legally kill anybody I like, since there is no judgement and formal rendering of that specific action as illegal. Clearly that’s ludicrous, since the EXISTING LAWS OF THE LAND define killing as an illegal act per se.
And THE EXISTING LAWS and charters as per the UN definition, to which the US has agreed to abide by (indeed, was instrumental in creating), DEFINE THE US INVASION AS ILLEGAL.
I refer you to:
Charter of the United Nations - Chapter 1 Article 2
“ 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” //end excerpt
So: Clearly and unambiguously you are wrong on this matter.
[kryppie] “ Immorality is, for example, lying by suggesting that the US has employed Saddam's former intelligence officers for the purposes of implementing Saddam style torturous intimidation practices. Another example of immorality would be to lie in suggesting that the US has encouraged Shiite militias to also implement Saddam style torturous intimidation practices for purposes of creating civil strife. ”
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, Kryppie thinks that exposing the documented brutality and the murderous nature of the security apparatus the US has set up, trained and armed is “immoral”. FOAD loser. You wouldn’t know what “morality” was if it smashed you upside the head.
[kryppie] “If I sue you, all I would have to do is prove that you said these things, which is all nicely laid out here on this blog, and I would win.”
ROTFLMAO! God, you made my day, dude.
:*D
Rock on, man.
At 10:47 PM,
"Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, Kryppie thinks that exposing the documented brutality and the murderous nature of the security apparatus the US has set up, trained and armed is “immoral”."
LOL. Ummm...no, that's not what I said. Go back and read the post again. What is immoral is to inflame the passions of hatred and to provoke and prolong a totally meaningless war by defaming the US with LIES about the "brutality and murderous nature" of Americans / the United States military / the US administration / the Iraqi government...etc, all of which are going to great lengths to establish stability and reconstruct the country. Your underlying theme is that Iraqis are victims of US aggression / imperialism, that the US wants to "rob Iraq of its resources", or "enslave its people", or "kill all muslims" and all the other stupid bullshit you've bored us to death with over these past 3 years where you've failed miserably at getting the US to leave Iraq for Saddam, or Al-Qaida, or Iran to have its way with. With any critical thinking at all, anyone knows that the US has NO desire or need to do any of these things, and that these are all just propaganda phrases used by people like you, and Saddam, and Al Qaida, and every other backwards, totalitarian entity to manipulate people into perpetuating war with the US and hatred towards Americans. By placing the blame on America, the one country that stands up to dictators and terrorists, you allow for individauls like SADDAM to control and enslave people.
Just so you know for the future, the UN charter was put together at the end of world war 2. It has not been revised over the last 50 years, and is considered by most to be an irrelevant document. It fails to anticipate any of the current threats facing the modern world, including the rise of power of non-state actors (terrorists), and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, among other things.
Further, it is truly an aspirational document like, for example, the US Declaration of Independence. Its a nice guide, but is ambiguous and carries no SPECIFIC legal authority.
Nevertheless, if you really want to get into an argument over international law, there are numerous "exceptions" to the charter rules you cited that allow for the US to take action.
Obviously, someone who has murdered has broken the law. But we do not designate someone as a murderer until that person has been proven a murderer. So your analogy is totally disingenous. To prove someone is a murderer, you need a court with proper jurisdicition to make that determination. There is no court outside the United States that can make that determination. Just so you know, the UN is not a "world government", cannot create courts to try countries, and UN law is not above the laws of the United States. Therefore, using the term "illegal" may work well for purposes of your propaganda, but it is factually incorrect and a logical impossibility. Once again, you are wrong. LMAO. God, this is fun tearing you apart every day.
[kryptonite] “What is immoral is to inflame the passions of hatred and to provoke and prolong a totally meaningless war by defaming the US with LIES about the "brutality and murderous nature" of Americans / the United States military / the US administration / the Iraqi government”
Oh, yeah, that’s right. Sorry, the Occupation is totally benign, which is why nearly a million Iraqis have been displaced to Jordan as war refugees. Yeah, that’s right, this war has been really good for Iraq, which is why all the Iraqis are leaving. And of course, US servicemen are renowned for raping, torturing, beating up, burning, electrocuting and humiliating Iraqis … I guess, in the Kryptonite parallel universe, because it is Americans doing this, Iraqis must like this, then.
[kryptonite] “Just so you know for the future, the UN charter was put together at the end of world war 2. It has not been revised over the last 50 years, and is considered by most to be an irrelevant document.”
I see. So the Charter, to which the US pledged to abide, has been officially denounced? It has been officially repudiated? Please, link to the relevant document. I’d hate to think that the US was a hypocritical two faced country who’s word isn’t worth the air it takes to spit it.
[kryptonite] “Nevertheless, if you really want to get into an argument over international law, there are numerous "exceptions" to the charter rules you cited that allow for the US to take action.”
You are the one who said the invasion was legal. I HAVE DEMONSTRATED IT IS NOT. It is up to you to provide these “exceptions” and show how the US action fits within their guidelines. I’ve had this argument many times, and I’m aware of pretty much all the framework. So, let’s do go there.
[kryptonite] “the UN is not a "world government", cannot create courts to try countries, and UN law is not above the laws of the United States. Therefore, using the term "illegal" may work well for purposes of your propaganda, but it is factually incorrect and a logical impossibility.”
Unfortunately for you, you HAVE agreed to abide by UN law. You have subordinated yourself to the concept of a collective law applying equally to all its signatories. I am 100% correct in characterising a breach of that collective law as being an “illegal” action. You are again trying to obfuscate “enforceability” with “legality” … which are two different concepts. Unless, of course, you are a Neanderthal who thinks might makes right …
At 7:24 AM,
At 7:27 AM,
"Unfortunately for you, you HAVE agreed to abide by UN law. You have subordinated yourself to the concept of a collective law applying equally to all its signatories." Ummm...no, we haven't. The US constitution takes supremacy over "UN law". Only when the US congress goes through the process of formally adopting an "international law" does that law, in fact, become part of US law.
[kryptonite] “Nevertheless, if you really want to get into an argument over international law, there are numerous "exceptions" to the charter rules you cited that allow for the US to take action.”
Let’s talk facts. Provide me with one of these “numerous” exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
At 6:40 AM,
"You helped SET UP and ratified the charters and conventions of the UN. Sorry, but you are just indicating your gross ignorance here."
When did the US help set up and ratify the charters? Was it in 2001, after 9/11? Was it after the Africa bombings, or the first world trade center bombings, or the first cole bombings? Was it after Saddam's assasination attempts on GB1? Or after Saddam invaded Kuwait? Was it before or after the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Please tell your audience WHEN the UN Charter was set up, and under what circumstances? You are the most intellectually disingenuous person in existence. Keep up with the amusing lies.
I am happy to argue over the provisions of the UN charter - just demonstrate that it is RELEVANT first. You can't? I didn't think so.
[kryptonite] “When did the US help set up and ratify the charters?”
from WorldPress:
After the bloodshed and destruction of World War II, the victorious Allied states pledged that history would not repeat itself and, toward that end, agreed to establish a new global organization that would be set up with the goal of preserving peace among nations. In 1945, at the San Francisco Conference, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China jointly agreed upon the terms for the charter of what would soon thereafter become the United Nations. Signed by 51 states, the charter formally entered into force on October 24, 1945.
[…]
The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." //end excerpt
Thus: not only are you wrong that the Charter is not a legal document, you are also wrong that the US is not bound by it and you are also wrong on the fact that US law supercedes it.
I refer to:
US Department of State – Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs
The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 - October 1945
“In a testament to the sustained wartime efforts to build support for the United Nations, the Charter was approved in the Senate on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2, with 5 abstentions. (The U.S. ratification followed that of Nicaragua and El Salvador.) The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, and France, as well as a majority of the other signatories, had ratified the United Nations Charter.” //end
Thus: it has been ratified and is part of US law.
Clearly, by the guidelines of the Charter, Bush and the senior members of the US government are war criminals.
Your disputing of the relevance of the Charter really does not surprise me. It is typical American behaviour to hypocritically support UN law when it suits you and to break it down when it does not. Sort of like the Nazis declaring the League of Nations irrelevant.
Fact remains: you signed and ratified the Charter, and your actions in invading Iraq are therefore ILLEGAL and make you and all those who support this war liars and oath-breakers. It’s that simple.
Now, I repeat:
[kryptonite] “Nevertheless, if you really want to get into an argument over international law, there are numerous "exceptions" to the charter rules you cited that allow for the US to take action.”
Let’s talk facts. Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
At 6:35 AM,
"Thus: not only are you wrong that the Charter is not a legal document, you are also wrong that the US is not bound by it and you are also wrong on the fact that US law supercedes it."
Bruno...every 8 year old american kid knows that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, you idiot. the un charter is an aspirational document. i never said it was not a "legal" document, my claim is simply that it carries little weight in US courts. Please cite me a Supreme Court Case which defines the UN Charter as being of greater authority than the US Constitution. Then, I will engage in your little debate within the context of the UN charter. Further, the provisions you cite are extremely broad, and further do not contemplate the proliferation of terrorism and WMD. I suggest you start working with other international treaties, because the UN charter will not help you.
Your attempt at evasion and trickery is noted and scornfully dismissed. We are discussing the legality of the invasion of Iraq, not domestic US law. Since I have AMPLY demonstrated, to your discomfit, that the UN charter is indeed a part of US law, the question you ask is moot.
Even more to the point, you obviously did not read the excerpt properly, since you missed this: “The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.”
In other words, the very US constitution which you trumpet ACKNOWLEDGES THE BINDING NATURE AND SUPREMACY OF THESE TREATIES.
Now, since the US has not officially repudiated the UN Charter and since it IS part of US law, I ask again:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
At 6:58 AM,
"In other words, the very US constitution which you trumpet ACKNOWLEDGES THE BINDING NATURE AND SUPREMACY OF THESE TREATIES."
First, the UN charter is not a "treaty" in the traditional way that term is understood. Again, it is an aspirational document, like the Declaration of INdependence, which carries some legal weight, but is not specific enough to be practically applicable. That is why you will not find a US Supreme Court case that uses or cites the UN Charter as supreme legal authority. The US constitution holds that position. I repeat, the UN was set up 50 years ago to address State on State aggression. It does not apply to conflicts involving WMD, terrorism, and non-state actors. Please demonstrate that the UN Charter applies.
[kryptonite] “Again, it is an aspirational document, like the Declaration of INdependence, which carries some legal weight, but is not specific enough to be practically applicable.”
So: you admit that the US Charter is legally binding and that it is part of US law.
Thanks.
As for being “specific” enough: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Is very specific and precise in its terminology.
[kryptonite] “It does not apply to conflicts involving WMD, terrorism, and non-state actors.”
Ignoring of course, the fact that it was set up and ratified AFTER the US use of the atomic bomb and the extensive use of poisonous chemicals in the first world war … your WMD … displaying your manifest ignorance yet again.
Your argument is irrelevant.
Even IF I AGREED with you on this, the FACT remains that as long as the US does not officially repudiate the Charter and withdraw from the UN, the CHARTER REMAINS PART OF US LAW.
And even if I agreed with you on the non-state actors bullshit that you are peddling, we are not talking about non-state actors.
As you said, “I repeat, the UN was set up 50 years ago to address State on State aggression.”
Now, since we are specifically addressing the illegality of the invasion of the STATE of Iraq by the STATE of America, I repeat:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
( BTW, I’m enjoying every moment of your squirming on the end of my hook, since you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. The reference to “terrorism, WMD and non-state actors” is part of the wingnut justifications - for- the- ignoring- of- the- Geneva- Conventions debate, and has nothing to do with the legality or lack thereof of the invasion of Iraq. You’re getting your arguments mixed up. I’m inside your skin, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.)
At 5:52 AM,
"Even IF I AGREED with you on this, the FACT remains that as long as the US does not officially repudiate the Charter and withdraw from the UN, the CHARTER REMAINS PART OF US LAW.
And even if I agreed with you on the non-state actors bullshit that you are peddling, we are not talking about non-state actors..."
I've never said the UN charter is not part of US law. My argument has been that it is of little significance IN US law, because it does not supercede the US constitution. You said that it does. This is wrong, and you are therefore a liar.
I also never said that the UN charter was written before the US of an atomic bomb, I said it was done before the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons, both in strength and scope. It is MUCH easier to make a nuclear bomb now, than it was in the 1950s. Further, many, many more people have access to the technology, including terrorists. Something the drafters of the UN charter did not address or anticipate.
Again, I ask you to cite a US Supreme Ct. case that actually cites to the UN charter as a superceding source of US law. I'd be happy to engage in your debate, and anser all your questions, as soon as you do that.
At 5:56 AM,
[kryptonite] “Again, I ask you to cite a US Supreme Ct. case that actually cites to the UN charter as a superceding source of US law […] My argument has been that it is of little significance IN US law, because it does not supercede the US constitution.”
The point is not whether the US supreme Court does or does not cite the UN Charter.
The point is not about US ** domestic ** law.
The point is about the *international* laws that have jurisprudence over your *foreign policy*.
The Supreme Court has little to nothing to do with the formulation of US foreign policy – in other words, it is not applicable as an authority on inter-state relations. Inter-state disputes are regulated by the ICJ which – surprise, surprise – happens to be a UN organ based on the Charters.
The SPECIFIC point which we are addressing is whether the US invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal. This refers to inter-state disputes, which ARE the province of the ICJ and also the UN Charter.
So far we have established that:
(1) The UN Charter is a treaty.
(2) It was set up in good part by the US in order to stop wars from occurring.
(3) The US ratified this treaty.
(4) The US never repudiated this treaty.
(5) The US Constitution itself stipulates that treaties are part and parcel of the supreme law of the land. In other words, the US has bound itself to obey the Charter.
Thus clearly, the US has flouted the Charter’s laws by launching an aggressive war – an ILLEGAL aggressive war.
Full stop.
If you insist on hammering on the US Supreme Court as a source of international legitimacy for launching invasions, then you will have to provide a *basis* for that statement. In other words, you will have to provide documentation and FACTS in order to be credible.
Now, back to the subject at hand:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
(BTW you did not say: “I also never said that the UN charter was written before the US of an atomic bomb, I said it was done before the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons” you said: “It does not apply to conflicts involving WMD, terrorism, and non-state actors.” WMD refer to both chemical and nuclear weapons, BOTH as I mentioned, had been used *prior* to the Charter’s creation.)
At 6:54 AM,
"Now, how's about you keep your promise and explain what in UN legislation made the US invasion LEGAL?"
Like I've repeated several times, the UN charter does not address non-state terrorists as a threat, which they clearly are. So, my argument is that the UN charter is an irrelevant and inapplicable document in this case, just like the Geneva conventions.
Further, you are asking me to prove that something I did is legal? That's like asking someone accused of stealing something to prove that he didn't steal something. Thank god I live in America, where the burden is on the prosecution (you, in this case). You are failing miserably to even establish a legal framework for your case.
[kryptonite] “Like I've repeated several times, the UN charter does not address non-state terrorists as a threat, which they clearly are.”
I repeat:
The SPECIFIC point which we are addressing is whether the US invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal. This refers to inter-state disputes, which ARE the province of the ICJ and also the UN Charter.
We are *not* talking about non state actors.
We are talking about the invasion of the STATE of Iraq by the STATE of the US.
[kryptonite] “So, my argument is that the UN charter is an irrelevant and inapplicable document in this case, just like the Geneva conventions.”
That’s nice, but that does not change the fact that the US STILL is an adherent to the UN Charter since it has not repudiated it, no matter what YOU personally may or may not “think”, to use the term generously. The US is STILL bound by the Geneva Conventions. Your own Supreme Court, which you trumpet so loudly, has supported this subordination of US foreign policy to the Conventions, when put to the test.
I refer you to :
Supreme Court ruling troubles GOP senators
By PETE YOST - Associated Press - July 3, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - Of all the steps the Supreme Court could have taken to undercut President Bush's legal position in the war on terror, applying international law to al-Qaida probably would have been the worst.
That development came to pass Thursday and now Republicans are rushing to protect the cornerstone of Bush's thinking: Suspected terrorists are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Accords.
[…]
Article 3 prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, "in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," and bars violence, including murder, mutilation and torture.
[…]
McConnell, R-Ky., the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said the 5-3 court decision "means that American servicemen potentially could be accused of war crimes."
[…]
The Supreme Court said Bush's military commissions violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Under military commission rules, the court noted, such panels may block an accused and his civilian lawyer from ever learning of evidence the prosecution presents that is classified. In addition, commissions can permit the admission of any evidence it deems to have probative value to a reasonable person.”//end excerpt
Now, since I have abundantly established the illegal nature of the US actions vis a vis Iraq, and since you seem so sure the US action was legal, I ask you again:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
At 10:50 AM,
Bruno, the UN charter, again, is inapplicable to the modern world. I've explain, numerous times, that it does not "govern" US actions. you disagree, and said you could find me a supreme court case suggesting that it does. You came up with an AP article discussing the Geneva Conventions - not a supreme court judgment verifying your claim that the UN Charter supercedes the US Constitution. You CAN'T find one because it does not EXIST. The UN Charter is ASPIRATIONAL - it has no specific application. You say that a state cannot attack another state. I could argue, under the UN charter, that the US is acting in self defense - depending on HOW the self defense provisions of the UN charter are applied, the US was either acting within its right to self defense or not. Because there is not enough authority to indicate whether or not a DICTATOR HOSTILE TO THE US, WHO HARBORS TERRORISTS, WHO HAS GONE TO WAR WITH AMERICA'S ALLIES, WHO SEEKS TO DESTROY AMERICA'S ALLIES, WHO IS A HUMANITARIAN NIGHTMARE TO HIS OWN PEOPLE is enough for the US to claim SELF DEFENSE. The issue simply has not come up often enough for there to be any formal specific legal application. You THINK it is not self defense. I believe it is. There is not enough law defining what a THREAT is to invoke self defense. For the threat was a combination of things, including WMD, terrorism, humanitarian issues, and general hostitility and desire to do harm by Saddam Hussein that, combined, created a threat. The UN charter does not specify what a "threat" is. Therefore, it is inapplicable.
[kryptonite] “You came up with an AP article discussing the Geneva Conventions … ”
Merely to prove and underline again that your ignorance of the law is huge. Your statement about the GC is WRONG. That’s all.
And, you might want to research your facts a little. The US Supreme Court DOES reference the ICJ, which is based on the Charters, among other things.
[kryptonite] “The UN Charter is ASPIRATIONAL - it has no specific application”
PROVE IT. According to the US Constitution Article 6, clause 2 defines treaties such as the UN Charter as the Supreme Law of the Land. The facts are on my side, chum.
Your position is akin to me declaring that the laws against murder are purely aspirational, with nothing but fresh air to back me up.
[kryptonite] “For the threat was a combination of things, including WMD, terrorism, humanitarian issues, and general hostitility and desire to do harm by Saddam Hussein that, combined, created a threat. The UN charter does not specify what a "threat" is. Therefore, it is inapplicable.”
Except for the small fact that a war such as the one to boot Saddam from Kuwait, has to be AUTHORISED by the UN. And self defense means REAL self defence.
Merely dreaming up a ‘threat’ is not going to do the job, particularly if over a decade had gone by without this ‘urgent’ threat doing anything hostile whatsoever towards you.
Why, if that were the case we could conclude that Hussein would have been fully justified in striking at the US, given your stockpiles of WMD, your history of using them, your history of supporting terrorism against the Iraqi people, your sanctions which were targeting the Iraqi civilian populace and your imbecile president who clearly was intending to target Iraq despite Iraq’s non-involvement in 9-11.
Hussein had a better legal case for a ‘pre-emptive strike’ than YOU did.
Even so, please note that the UN does not make provision for the concept of a pre-emptive strike.
A Security Council- authorized war, yes.
A Bush – authorized strike … no.
The war is illegal, period.
At 7:42 AM,
[kryptonite] "The UN security can authorize military action, OR a member state can take its own action based on self defense, humanitarian cause, defense of other nations, and so forth."
So that's like shooting some dude in the head and saying it was justified because the law makes provision for self defence. The onus is on you to PROVE said self defence, something which you have not even started doing.
As I've been saying all along:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
You still have not addressed the question via quoting the specific Resolution or excerpt from the UN laws which makes this war legal. Obviously you don't know.
However, your continued evasion of my question is noted.
At 12:46 PM,
"However, your continued evasion of my question is noted."
Actually, i answered your question pretty directly without providing you with any additional fodder to propagate. i, basically, proved your entire theory wrong without even citing specific articles. something i will not do because i have no interest in proving to YOU that i know which provision it is. It is only important for your readers to take the time to look it up themselves, and find for themselves the TRUTH which you, apparently, have no respect for.
But to respond to your most recent post, I would only have to prove self defense if i was prosecuted, which i am not. But if you had the balls to launch a war crimes suit against the US government then, if the court you sue in has jurisdiction, there would, of course be a self defense argument. I addressed the self defense argument in previous posts, but I will not repeat myself again. I encourage all readers to see above, and find for themselves that you are a LIAR once again.
[kryptonite] “Actually, i answered your question pretty directly without providing you with any additional fodder to propagate. i, basically, proved your entire theory wrong without even citing specific articles. something i will not do because i have no interest in proving to YOU that i know which provision it is.”
Oh, yeah, that’s right, and I disproved Einstein’s theory of Relativity this morning just before breakfast, without even doing any mathematics. Wow, us mega-geniuses sure are dime-a-dozen, eh?
I remember you saying:
[kryppie] “Nevertheless, if you really want to get into an argument over international law, there are numerous "exceptions" to the charter rules you cited that allow for the US to take action.”
Now, I REALLY DO want to get into an argument about international law, and UNLIKE YOU, I have been very precise in quoting the exact excerpts and articles that are relevant. Simply saying “the truth is out there” and waving your hand in the direction of Mr Google does NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING to support your position. There is simply no rhetorical substitute for referring directly to the precise treaties and phrases that are legally pertinent.
In referring to the truth, in other words.
You, in your mad bout of bravado, promised to provide these exceptions.
Now:
As I've been saying all along:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
You still have not addressed the question via quoting the specific Resolution or excerpt from the UN laws which makes this war legal. Obviously you don't know.
However, your continued evasion of my question (and your promise) is noted.
At 1:50 PM,
"Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways."
I've provided you with plenty of examples. Go back and read my posts. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over again. You are wasting your breath, as there will never be a war crimes trial for this war. Mark my word. You are too much of a wus to do anything.
"I've provided you with plenty of examples."
No, as a matter of fact you've not at all. I'm talking about SPECIFIC texts and excerpts from law or treaties. Your extremely elementary and naive comments leave me in no doubt whatsoever that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Now:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
At 6:18 PM,
Nice try at obfuscation Kryp.
However, we're talking about you and your claims. Namely that you were going to "discuss" the legality of the war. So:
Provide me with one of these ‘numerous’ exceptions and we can discuss it in detail, and I can then show you the error of your ways. Feel free to make reference to any of the key UN resolutions on Iraq, which, considering your bombast, I’m sure that you are intimately familiar with.
(BTW, There is already a trial on in the US which will test the legality of the war. But since you are as legally informed as a plank, you'll have no clue as to what it is. Until I tell you.)
At 6:39 AM,
BTW, There is already a trial on in the US which will test the legality of the war. But since you are as legally informed as a plank, you'll have no clue as to what it is. Until I tell you.)
Okay, so why don't we wait for the results of that "trial" and we can see who wins?
And I have already addressed your questions, I'm not going to repeat myself...AGAIN. I will not cite specific articles to help you with you propaganda campaign. Go do your own research...I'm very comfortable with mine. You should be comfortable with yours too.
At 6:30 AM,
"You're lying again about your intentions and about the solidity of your position."
Actually, I just don't feel like spending my valuable time going back and forth with you making an irrelevant point. Whether or not it was illegal for the US to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam, and, at the same time, defend itself from Saddam's nefarious intentions, is subject to a range of facts which you have no knowledge of. Its a stupid argument, as it can't be proven in any judicial sense, and will never reach a high level court having jurisdiction over the US government. It ultimately exposes the failings of the UN, which is impotent when it comes to protecting its member states. The argument further does nothing to help the situation the Iraqi people are in now...so I can understand why you love talking about it so much.
Touching, riveting, unimaginable and descriptive. I couldn't imagine the horror that these people went through and just how much you Iraqis are continuing to suffer.
I know it probably doesn't mean much, but I pray for Iraq. I pray that it becomes peaceful one day soon.
Please continue to post these testimonies regularly 24.