President George W Bush's post-election honeymoon came to an abrupt end yesterday as it emerged that, for the first time since last year's invasion, a clear majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq is a mistake.
Source: Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/43hva
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
kit wrote: I would respectfully point out that the Washington Post and ABC have a longstanding anti Bush bias. That is not debateable since the owners of both news outlets have publically come out against Bush going back to the first Bush election win/theft or whatever you want to call it. (Though I think I can guess what your opinion is).
OK, so it's a bent poll. End of topic, then.
What do you guess my opinion is of what? Mr. Bush's election win? It's just that he won... not sure there's anything else to say!
kit wrote: The way the poll questions are formulated can make a poll say anything the pollster wants, or in this case what the Washington Post and ABC wants. (You may not be aware of this but the organization which commissions a poll always vets the poll questions before the poll is conducted. Not only that but where/when and to whom the poll is directed has a large effect on the results I'm sure you will agree.
I could come up with completely different results if I conducted the poll outside say a Liberal university compared to a predominatly 'Red State' university.
So what I'm saying is polls are quite meaningless because they are so subjective.
With respect,
John
OK, this has caused me to look into what I posted as a simple headline from a somewhat respected UK paper. The Washington Post/ABC questions and their results are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 22004.html
There is a statement there which says "This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone December 16-19, 2004 among 1,004 randomly selected adults nationwide.".
The question which seems the most relevant is: "3. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?".
Do you feel that this is manipulating the replies, or that the people selected were not random, but biased?
Just interested at the results, that's all.
OK, so it's a bent poll. End of topic, then.
What do you guess my opinion is of what? Mr. Bush's election win? It's just that he won... not sure there's anything else to say!
kit wrote: The way the poll questions are formulated can make a poll say anything the pollster wants, or in this case what the Washington Post and ABC wants. (You may not be aware of this but the organization which commissions a poll always vets the poll questions before the poll is conducted. Not only that but where/when and to whom the poll is directed has a large effect on the results I'm sure you will agree.
I could come up with completely different results if I conducted the poll outside say a Liberal university compared to a predominatly 'Red State' university.
So what I'm saying is polls are quite meaningless because they are so subjective.
With respect,
John
OK, this has caused me to look into what I posted as a simple headline from a somewhat respected UK paper. The Washington Post/ABC questions and their results are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 22004.html
There is a statement there which says "This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone December 16-19, 2004 among 1,004 randomly selected adults nationwide.".
The question which seems the most relevant is: "3. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?".
Do you feel that this is manipulating the replies, or that the people selected were not random, but biased?
Just interested at the results, that's all.
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Any numbers can be manipulated to produce the desired results. The final anwser to this question leaves plenty of wiggle room.. strongly or somewhat.. I mean that is like saying are you a virgin or somewhat a virgin...
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
greydeadhead wrote: Any numbers can be manipulated to produce the desired results. The final anwser to this question leaves plenty of wiggle room.. strongly or somewhat..
But they're both "yes", aren't they? N.B. I am asking about the poll, not the putative result!
greydeadhead wrote: I mean that is like saying are you a virgin or somewhat a virgin...
Like Mr. Clinton, who "did not have sex with that woman" ? :->
But they're both "yes", aren't they? N.B. I am asking about the poll, not the putative result!
greydeadhead wrote: I mean that is like saying are you a virgin or somewhat a virgin...
Like Mr. Clinton, who "did not have sex with that woman" ? :->
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
I feel that war should be the last resort. Everything possible should be done to prevent a war. In Mahabharata, Lord Krishna did every thing to avoid the war between Pandavas and Kauravas but when it became a compulsion then He advised Arjuna to fight to win.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Bill Sikes wrote:
The question which seems the most relevant is: "3. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?".
I think, as phrased, the question would evoke a "brain search" input of "cost benefit ratio", and yield a pavlovian response in financial terms.
How about a simpler questian like "will the war in Iraq yield any benefit to the United States". If I were seeking a more thoughtful answer, I would list some "things" of value like monetary, moral, status, etc.
Being a detail person, and confirmed cynic, I'm curious why the war is refered to in past rather than present tense.
The question which seems the most relevant is: "3. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?".
I think, as phrased, the question would evoke a "brain search" input of "cost benefit ratio", and yield a pavlovian response in financial terms.
How about a simpler questian like "will the war in Iraq yield any benefit to the United States". If I were seeking a more thoughtful answer, I would list some "things" of value like monetary, moral, status, etc.
Being a detail person, and confirmed cynic, I'm curious why the war is refered to in past rather than present tense.
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill 
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Der Wulf wrote: ........ I'm curious why the war is refered to in past rather than present tense.
Yes, a valid point. War in Iraq is not yet over then why refer it to in past tense? Any answers!
Yes, a valid point. War in Iraq is not yet over then why refer it to in past tense? Any answers!
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
kit wrote: There's no point in going into the reasons why because those who don't support the war will never agree and those who support the war will stick to their opinions.
I respectfully disagree. It seems crucial to be able to understand opposing viewpoints. That doesn't mean trying to change anyone's mind, nor does it feed into the notion that there is only one way to accomplish something.
If people can't talk and listen and undestand one another, then we will never reach resoutions of any value. We will merely become increasingly polarized until we can't even see the "other side", much less recognize it as human. JMHO.
I respectfully disagree. It seems crucial to be able to understand opposing viewpoints. That doesn't mean trying to change anyone's mind, nor does it feed into the notion that there is only one way to accomplish something.
If people can't talk and listen and undestand one another, then we will never reach resoutions of any value. We will merely become increasingly polarized until we can't even see the "other side", much less recognize it as human. JMHO.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
kit wrote: What I find curious is why/how the results of polls commissioned by Liberal news outlets are often negative for Bush/Iraq etc, yet Right leaning news outlets often have the oposite poll rsults.
.Pollsters are rarely hired on the basis of random selection. While questions asked are rarely blatent with regard to slant, a skillful polster can easily create an enviroment friendly to the desired answer. Use of popular jargon, or unspecific terms, are known to elicit "canned" responses.
.Pollsters are rarely hired on the basis of random selection. While questions asked are rarely blatent with regard to slant, a skillful polster can easily create an enviroment friendly to the desired answer. Use of popular jargon, or unspecific terms, are known to elicit "canned" responses.
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
kit wrote: At this point I have made my mind up as to what side of the debate I am on. After all that is what eventually needs to happen doesn't it?
Hi John. I am a sick, twisted soul (grin) and I tend to think that we should pretty much know our position before debating. If we haven't determined our own position yet, then we need to be listening, reading, and asking questions - not debating. There are tons of things I won't/can't debate because I don't know where I stand yet, and I certainly haven't been able to research as much as I'd like to.
For me, there are two benefits that makes debate worthwhile. 1) Listening to opposing views can strike new thoughts for me and it assures me that I've considered all possibilities. 2) It allows me to understand other positions without feeling angry about it. It reveals individual priorities - which is really all we base our decisions on. Knowing what's most important to another person is reassuring for me, if that makes sense.
I changed someone's mind once, and I admit I felt sick about it. I'd rather inspire thought, which is what others do for me.
kit wrote: I recently left a forum because it had degenerated into a dozen members screaming at each other going over and over first Bush and then the war. No one was offering any new insights and every day each side won or lost according to what their chosen news outlet told them. It got pretty old pretty fast. I don't want to be a member of that type of forum again.
While we do get passionate from time to time, no one seems to be beating a dead horse at this forum. I'm sorry you had that experience and hope that things are more comfortable for you here. I think depending on the news story of the day to "prove" who's right is short-sighted. History will determine that for us, as you've said.
Welcome to the garden.
Hi John. I am a sick, twisted soul (grin) and I tend to think that we should pretty much know our position before debating. If we haven't determined our own position yet, then we need to be listening, reading, and asking questions - not debating. There are tons of things I won't/can't debate because I don't know where I stand yet, and I certainly haven't been able to research as much as I'd like to.
For me, there are two benefits that makes debate worthwhile. 1) Listening to opposing views can strike new thoughts for me and it assures me that I've considered all possibilities. 2) It allows me to understand other positions without feeling angry about it. It reveals individual priorities - which is really all we base our decisions on. Knowing what's most important to another person is reassuring for me, if that makes sense.
I changed someone's mind once, and I admit I felt sick about it. I'd rather inspire thought, which is what others do for me.
kit wrote: I recently left a forum because it had degenerated into a dozen members screaming at each other going over and over first Bush and then the war. No one was offering any new insights and every day each side won or lost according to what their chosen news outlet told them. It got pretty old pretty fast. I don't want to be a member of that type of forum again.
While we do get passionate from time to time, no one seems to be beating a dead horse at this forum. I'm sorry you had that experience and hope that things are more comfortable for you here. I think depending on the news story of the day to "prove" who's right is short-sighted. History will determine that for us, as you've said.
Welcome to the garden.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Bill Sikes wrote: President George W Bush's post-election honeymoon came to an abrupt end yesterday as it emerged that, for the first time since last year's invasion, a clear majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq is a mistake.
Source: Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/43hva
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html
I have a plan. Lets bring all of our troops home. When the crazy murderers hit us again, the troops can surround and protect the burning buildings. This way nobody will have to go off to war and the chances of a soldier being killed will be reduced to almost zero. Mabe then, the enemy infiltrated, Radical Islamic, propagandizing news media will be happy.
The poeple who have decided the war is a mistake are armed with opinions. Those who are armed with necessarily secret intelligence and charged with the welfare of this nation are losing support because of politically motivated Monday morning quarterebacks who listen to news media sound bites and call it truth.
Source: Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/43hva
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html
I have a plan. Lets bring all of our troops home. When the crazy murderers hit us again, the troops can surround and protect the burning buildings. This way nobody will have to go off to war and the chances of a soldier being killed will be reduced to almost zero. Mabe then, the enemy infiltrated, Radical Islamic, propagandizing news media will be happy.
The poeple who have decided the war is a mistake are armed with opinions. Those who are armed with necessarily secret intelligence and charged with the welfare of this nation are losing support because of politically motivated Monday morning quarterebacks who listen to news media sound bites and call it truth.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
People have their opinions on various issues. I will not go in to right and wrong of these opinions. I find a good thing has come out of this thread as seen in John's and Carenina's messages - benefits of a worthwhile debate.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Clint wrote: I have a plan. Lets bring all of our troops home. When the crazy murderers hit us again, the troops can surround and protect the burning buildings. This way nobody will have to go off to war and the chances of a soldier being killed will be reduced to almost zero. Mabe then, the enemy infiltrated, Radical Islamic, propagandizing news media will be happy.
The poeple who have decided the war is a mistake are armed with opinions. Those who are armed with necessarily secret intelligence and charged with the welfare of this nation are losing support because of politically motivated Monday morning quarterebacks who listen to news media sound bites and call it truth.The news media is only happy when things are hot and horrible - it sells, they make money, they buy BMWs, and life goes on. God forbid they ever report anything nice that goes on in the world. Thankfully, there are websites that do report good news. Ok, enough on that particular rant. (LOL)
Clint, your post is somewhat unfair. Please listen to me just for a minute.
There are many people who supported soldiers in Afghanistan. Meaning, it's not all peaceniks who are anti-Iraq.
I'm still thinking through your other post.
I do admit that the longer this goes on, as the fighting intensifies, and we get streaming videos of beheadings...As indiscriminate bombings go on, and the terrorists themselves don't give two figs for their own people, I'm more inclined to support Iraq. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced it was the best way to handle it originally - but as things move on, the stakes change. (Does that make sense?)
I'm also beyond disgusted by those anti-Iraq-war people who hoping that something terrible happens so they can "be right"... It's one thing to disagree with a decision; it's another thing entirely to wish for destruction.
I'm rambling now, I apologize. When the Iraq war first broke out, I was dead set against it. I still felt we had other options. It doesn't matter now what I thought then - we're in it, and we have to make decisions based on here and now, not what we could've done. I keep seeing this incredible anger of regular Americans against each other. I can't stand it. (wahhhhh, I know).
If Bush can centralize terrorists into one place, and can manage to smash their movement, then he was right to do what he did. Anything less than that and the whole thing is pointless.
I'd like to ask a serious question ~ what effect do you all think our internal bickering has on the success or failure of this war?
The poeple who have decided the war is a mistake are armed with opinions. Those who are armed with necessarily secret intelligence and charged with the welfare of this nation are losing support because of politically motivated Monday morning quarterebacks who listen to news media sound bites and call it truth.The news media is only happy when things are hot and horrible - it sells, they make money, they buy BMWs, and life goes on. God forbid they ever report anything nice that goes on in the world. Thankfully, there are websites that do report good news. Ok, enough on that particular rant. (LOL)
Clint, your post is somewhat unfair. Please listen to me just for a minute.
There are many people who supported soldiers in Afghanistan. Meaning, it's not all peaceniks who are anti-Iraq.
I'm still thinking through your other post.
I do admit that the longer this goes on, as the fighting intensifies, and we get streaming videos of beheadings...As indiscriminate bombings go on, and the terrorists themselves don't give two figs for their own people, I'm more inclined to support Iraq. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced it was the best way to handle it originally - but as things move on, the stakes change. (Does that make sense?)
I'm also beyond disgusted by those anti-Iraq-war people who hoping that something terrible happens so they can "be right"... It's one thing to disagree with a decision; it's another thing entirely to wish for destruction.
I'm rambling now, I apologize. When the Iraq war first broke out, I was dead set against it. I still felt we had other options. It doesn't matter now what I thought then - we're in it, and we have to make decisions based on here and now, not what we could've done. I keep seeing this incredible anger of regular Americans against each other. I can't stand it. (wahhhhh, I know).
If Bush can centralize terrorists into one place, and can manage to smash their movement, then he was right to do what he did. Anything less than that and the whole thing is pointless.
I'd like to ask a serious question ~ what effect do you all think our internal bickering has on the success or failure of this war?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
A Karenina wrote: The news media is only happy when things are hot and horrible - it sells, they make money, they buy BMWs, and life goes on. God forbid they ever report anything nice that goes on in the world. Thankfully, there are websites that do report good news. Ok, enough on that particular rant. (LOL)
Clint, your post is somewhat unfair. Please listen to me just for a minute.
There are many people who supported soldiers in Afghanistan. Meaning, it's not all peaceniks who are anti-Iraq.
I'm still thinking through your other post.
I do admit that the longer this goes on, as the fighting intensifies, and we get streaming videos of beheadings...As indiscriminate bombings go on, and the terrorists themselves don't give two figs for their own people, I'm more inclined to support Iraq. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced it was the best way to handle it originally - but as things move on, the stakes change. (Does that make sense?)
I'm also beyond disgusted by those anti-Iraq-war people who hoping that something terrible happens so they can "be right"... It's one thing to disagree with a decision; it's another thing entirely to wish for destruction.
I'm rambling now, I apologize. When the Iraq war first broke out, I was dead set against it. I still felt we had other options. It doesn't matter now what I thought then - we're in it, and we have to make decisions based on here and now, not what we could've done. I keep seeing this incredible anger of regular Americans against each other. I can't stand it. (wahhhhh, I know).
If Bush can centralize terrorists into one place, and can manage to smash their movement, then he was right to do what he did. Anything less than that and the whole thing is pointless.
I'd like to ask a serious question ~ what effect do you all think our internal bickering has on the success or failure of this war?
My wife is telling me to hurry up. We are on our way to spend Christmas with our children and grandchildren so this has to be quick.
I think that our internal bickering has a very strong potential for destroying our effort. I also think it is symtomatic of a life threatening illness for us as a nation.
Clint, your post is somewhat unfair. Please listen to me just for a minute.
There are many people who supported soldiers in Afghanistan. Meaning, it's not all peaceniks who are anti-Iraq.
I'm still thinking through your other post.
I do admit that the longer this goes on, as the fighting intensifies, and we get streaming videos of beheadings...As indiscriminate bombings go on, and the terrorists themselves don't give two figs for their own people, I'm more inclined to support Iraq. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced it was the best way to handle it originally - but as things move on, the stakes change. (Does that make sense?)
I'm also beyond disgusted by those anti-Iraq-war people who hoping that something terrible happens so they can "be right"... It's one thing to disagree with a decision; it's another thing entirely to wish for destruction.
I'm rambling now, I apologize. When the Iraq war first broke out, I was dead set against it. I still felt we had other options. It doesn't matter now what I thought then - we're in it, and we have to make decisions based on here and now, not what we could've done. I keep seeing this incredible anger of regular Americans against each other. I can't stand it. (wahhhhh, I know).
If Bush can centralize terrorists into one place, and can manage to smash their movement, then he was right to do what he did. Anything less than that and the whole thing is pointless.
I'd like to ask a serious question ~ what effect do you all think our internal bickering has on the success or failure of this war?
My wife is telling me to hurry up. We are on our way to spend Christmas with our children and grandchildren so this has to be quick.
I think that our internal bickering has a very strong potential for destroying our effort. I also think it is symtomatic of a life threatening illness for us as a nation.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by clint
I think that our internal bickering has a very strong potential for destroying our effort. I also think it is symtomatic of a life threatening illness for us as a nation.
Internal bickering is the sign of a healthy democracy, when the bickering stops and one side forces it's opinions and silences opposition then you no longer have a free society. One of the biggest threats to freedom is the arguement that you should support your leaders whether you think they are right or not, that criticism is unpatriotic.
The other twisted logic is that if you are against the war then you must be against your own troops, it's an arguement designed to embarrass opponents in to silence, a diversionary tactic designed to tirn the arguement on to a different subject and a particularly shameful one as the implication that the pro war side cares more about the deaths of soldiers than the other is a despicable one.
Arguement and dissension are a feature of free societies, one of the problems that those of totalitarian disposition have is that they take it as a sign of weakness rather than the strength it is.
I think that our internal bickering has a very strong potential for destroying our effort. I also think it is symtomatic of a life threatening illness for us as a nation.
Internal bickering is the sign of a healthy democracy, when the bickering stops and one side forces it's opinions and silences opposition then you no longer have a free society. One of the biggest threats to freedom is the arguement that you should support your leaders whether you think they are right or not, that criticism is unpatriotic.
The other twisted logic is that if you are against the war then you must be against your own troops, it's an arguement designed to embarrass opponents in to silence, a diversionary tactic designed to tirn the arguement on to a different subject and a particularly shameful one as the implication that the pro war side cares more about the deaths of soldiers than the other is a despicable one.
Arguement and dissension are a feature of free societies, one of the problems that those of totalitarian disposition have is that they take it as a sign of weakness rather than the strength it is.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
I will agree with gmc.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
kit, good post.
I also agree with gmc and Suresh that dissent and free speech is a sign of a healthy democracy (I mean, republic - for Anastrophe. Grin). We need to be able to debate various points and proposals, but debate is the key word.
Lately, we're not debating. It's something else altogether, and it's very ugly. kit is right - some of the media does seem to be gleefully reporting deaths and failures. Many of the people I stood with before we invaded Iraq are now excited whenever something terrible happens.
I've heard conversations that are so filled with poison, I can't believe it. I'm pretty open to everyone thinking whatever they want to, but even I am filled with disgust and horror at what is being said over here.
I don't know if this is normal in times of war. I have no real experience to base a comparison on. I was 10 when we left Viet Nam, and I had no idea we were even at war until I saw it on the news at my aunt's house. (My dad did not allow me to watch news before I was 12.)
Maybe this is too idealistic, maybe it's not possible...but to me it's the same as in business. Say you're on a team and you have to make a decision. You strongly disagree with one of the proposals and much prefer your own. But the rest of the team wants to go with the other guy's idea.
Ok then. You can choose to buy in and support that idea, to do everything in your power to make sure that idea works - or you can do everything you can to make sure it fails.
If you were really right all along, then the other guy's decision will fail no matter what you do.
If you've been a good sport about it, if you've tried your heart out to make it work and it doesn't anyway - then the team will turn to you and ask for your help in fixing the error. It's very likely that your proposal will fly at this point. You will want and need the buy-in and support from every team member to make it work.
But if you did nothing to assist in making the first decision work, if you tried to thwart it in any way, you will be looked at with suspicion and you will not be asked to take a leadership position - because you have proven you're no leader. You're just a spoiled, immature, dictator in a suit. (LOL)
I'm saying that there is a time and place for dissent - and that the time and place is when decisions are being made. Once they've been made, then we all need to come round to it the best we can. It doesn't mean become a "gung-ho flag-waving, send your son to die" supporter. But it does mean we should find a way to support the war in ways that are comfortable for us. Send packages to soldiers, for instance. Donate blood. Volunteer at the Red Cross. Whatever works for you.
If the decision was truly a bad one, then time will bear that out. If that happens, then we as a country will need to be able to have internal relationships that are strong enough to withstand a change in direction.
Thoughts?
I also agree with gmc and Suresh that dissent and free speech is a sign of a healthy democracy (I mean, republic - for Anastrophe. Grin). We need to be able to debate various points and proposals, but debate is the key word.
Lately, we're not debating. It's something else altogether, and it's very ugly. kit is right - some of the media does seem to be gleefully reporting deaths and failures. Many of the people I stood with before we invaded Iraq are now excited whenever something terrible happens.
I've heard conversations that are so filled with poison, I can't believe it. I'm pretty open to everyone thinking whatever they want to, but even I am filled with disgust and horror at what is being said over here.
I don't know if this is normal in times of war. I have no real experience to base a comparison on. I was 10 when we left Viet Nam, and I had no idea we were even at war until I saw it on the news at my aunt's house. (My dad did not allow me to watch news before I was 12.)
Maybe this is too idealistic, maybe it's not possible...but to me it's the same as in business. Say you're on a team and you have to make a decision. You strongly disagree with one of the proposals and much prefer your own. But the rest of the team wants to go with the other guy's idea.
Ok then. You can choose to buy in and support that idea, to do everything in your power to make sure that idea works - or you can do everything you can to make sure it fails.
If you were really right all along, then the other guy's decision will fail no matter what you do.
If you've been a good sport about it, if you've tried your heart out to make it work and it doesn't anyway - then the team will turn to you and ask for your help in fixing the error. It's very likely that your proposal will fly at this point. You will want and need the buy-in and support from every team member to make it work.
But if you did nothing to assist in making the first decision work, if you tried to thwart it in any way, you will be looked at with suspicion and you will not be asked to take a leadership position - because you have proven you're no leader. You're just a spoiled, immature, dictator in a suit. (LOL)
I'm saying that there is a time and place for dissent - and that the time and place is when decisions are being made. Once they've been made, then we all need to come round to it the best we can. It doesn't mean become a "gung-ho flag-waving, send your son to die" supporter. But it does mean we should find a way to support the war in ways that are comfortable for us. Send packages to soldiers, for instance. Donate blood. Volunteer at the Red Cross. Whatever works for you.
If the decision was truly a bad one, then time will bear that out. If that happens, then we as a country will need to be able to have internal relationships that are strong enough to withstand a change in direction.
Thoughts?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
A Karenina wrote:
Thoughts?
Your thoughts were full of truth. Once a decision is made, the team must get on board or the team's goals will never be realized. We are a nation and we don't or shouldn't get to live here while working on or for the opposing team.
The depth of emotion and the lengths to which people are going to make their point is alarming. Emotion is driving people to make things up and use them as though they are facts just to support their opinions. To me that means there is more to the picture than strong feelings.
There is a side that supports our nation’s actions and there is one that opposes its actions. The opposition doesn’t seem to be willing to accept that their positions are not being honored so they continue opposing after the course has been committed to. Their desire is as desire for power.
They saw their opposition to the war in Vietnam bring the troops home and they think it can happen again. They had power and they loved it. They also think the result will be the same. They forget that this is not another Vietnam. We are at war because we have been attacked. In this war we either move forward, fighting until we win, which could take many decades, or we lose. It’s that simple. The bickering has the potential for causing our leaders to lose their will or result in the election of leaders who never had the will.
Some of the loudest opposition to the Vietnam War was, in large part, the Hollywood left. The same crowd sees the opportunity to be empowered again, and they seem to be willing to stop at nothing to relive those days. They have the charisma, money and the media available to them. What they lack is the intelligence, military and otherwise to make sound decisions. They will grab at a straw then blow it up to look like we are being lead by buffoons. The problem is they lack the training, background and supporting information to know what the straw is. If they prevail, we will find ourselves lead by them or their cronies. They are people who make a living by pretending. They can convince themselves of anything and then convince others. They cannot lead a nation beyond their shortsighted quest for power and we will crumble if they get the chance to try.
People need to ask themselves where the information came from that they use to decide where they stand. If it came from the pretend world of Hollywood or that industries actors and producers, then they must search until they find the truth. If they can't find the truth on their own, they should consider the source. Is it a source charged with the protection of its people, or a source charged with making money by pretending and creating images?
I think of the story of the elephant being examined by blind people. I admit I'm visually challenged when it comes to the things going on right now. The people who have the best sight have made a few mistakes. I trust them more than the guy telling me the elephant is a wall, rope or hose and continding loudly that I'm wrong for listining to the people who says it's a large animal that I don't want to be in bed with.
Thoughts?
Your thoughts were full of truth. Once a decision is made, the team must get on board or the team's goals will never be realized. We are a nation and we don't or shouldn't get to live here while working on or for the opposing team.
The depth of emotion and the lengths to which people are going to make their point is alarming. Emotion is driving people to make things up and use them as though they are facts just to support their opinions. To me that means there is more to the picture than strong feelings.
There is a side that supports our nation’s actions and there is one that opposes its actions. The opposition doesn’t seem to be willing to accept that their positions are not being honored so they continue opposing after the course has been committed to. Their desire is as desire for power.
They saw their opposition to the war in Vietnam bring the troops home and they think it can happen again. They had power and they loved it. They also think the result will be the same. They forget that this is not another Vietnam. We are at war because we have been attacked. In this war we either move forward, fighting until we win, which could take many decades, or we lose. It’s that simple. The bickering has the potential for causing our leaders to lose their will or result in the election of leaders who never had the will.
Some of the loudest opposition to the Vietnam War was, in large part, the Hollywood left. The same crowd sees the opportunity to be empowered again, and they seem to be willing to stop at nothing to relive those days. They have the charisma, money and the media available to them. What they lack is the intelligence, military and otherwise to make sound decisions. They will grab at a straw then blow it up to look like we are being lead by buffoons. The problem is they lack the training, background and supporting information to know what the straw is. If they prevail, we will find ourselves lead by them or their cronies. They are people who make a living by pretending. They can convince themselves of anything and then convince others. They cannot lead a nation beyond their shortsighted quest for power and we will crumble if they get the chance to try.
People need to ask themselves where the information came from that they use to decide where they stand. If it came from the pretend world of Hollywood or that industries actors and producers, then they must search until they find the truth. If they can't find the truth on their own, they should consider the source. Is it a source charged with the protection of its people, or a source charged with making money by pretending and creating images?
I think of the story of the elephant being examined by blind people. I admit I'm visually challenged when it comes to the things going on right now. The people who have the best sight have made a few mistakes. I trust them more than the guy telling me the elephant is a wall, rope or hose and continding loudly that I'm wrong for listining to the people who says it's a large animal that I don't want to be in bed with.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Everything takes time, Pres. Bush to me is doing what is correct. Its too late to turn back now, we need to complete the task. We have been too nice over there, a few big bombs would have set them back, less people from here would have died? The war is in session, it needs completion, i predict by fall 2005, the war will begin its end? I am not a political expert. These are MY thoughts...
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by clint
Terrorists do see arguement and dissention as a sign of weakness. At this point I believe a 'common front' is what they need to see.
I would be inclined to agree with you on the first point, especially of the islamic terrorists, but not the second. Terrorists win as soon as you change your way of life to combat them. "Presenting a common front" is another you should support your government right or wrong type arguement. If you think your government is pursuing a wrong course you need to say so.
posted by clint
People need to ask themselves where the information came from that they use to decide where they stand. If it came from the pretend world of Hollywood or that industries actors and producers, then they must search until they find the truth. If they can't find the truth on their own, they should consider the source. Is it a source charged with the protection of its people, or a source charged with making money by pretending and creating images?
Good point but I would suggest those who support the war in Iraq should ask the same question rather than just accepting things blindly. Who is making money from the war in Iraq?
posted by kit
Too many Liberals actually don't believe the US is involved in a real war. "The enemy doesn't wear uniforms so they cann't be the 'ememy". The world has changed since 911 and many things people once believed are no longer true.
It's a real war all right but it is a war against terrorists not nation states, that is a whole different ball game and one that requires a great deal of subtlety and international support. You have to wither support on the branch by cutting the roots of dissension not encourage the spread.
This is not like the left wing terrorists such as badder meinhof or the red brigade, it didn't just spring out of nothing. Cutting off the head will not work without looking at the roots.
Having said that I'm don't know what I would do were I in charge but I am sure I would not have supported a distraction like the war in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
The only reason TB got support for this was the supposed WMD's, he still won't admit he was wrong.
Terrorists do see arguement and dissention as a sign of weakness. At this point I believe a 'common front' is what they need to see.
I would be inclined to agree with you on the first point, especially of the islamic terrorists, but not the second. Terrorists win as soon as you change your way of life to combat them. "Presenting a common front" is another you should support your government right or wrong type arguement. If you think your government is pursuing a wrong course you need to say so.
posted by clint
People need to ask themselves where the information came from that they use to decide where they stand. If it came from the pretend world of Hollywood or that industries actors and producers, then they must search until they find the truth. If they can't find the truth on their own, they should consider the source. Is it a source charged with the protection of its people, or a source charged with making money by pretending and creating images?
Good point but I would suggest those who support the war in Iraq should ask the same question rather than just accepting things blindly. Who is making money from the war in Iraq?
posted by kit
Too many Liberals actually don't believe the US is involved in a real war. "The enemy doesn't wear uniforms so they cann't be the 'ememy". The world has changed since 911 and many things people once believed are no longer true.
It's a real war all right but it is a war against terrorists not nation states, that is a whole different ball game and one that requires a great deal of subtlety and international support. You have to wither support on the branch by cutting the roots of dissension not encourage the spread.
This is not like the left wing terrorists such as badder meinhof or the red brigade, it didn't just spring out of nothing. Cutting off the head will not work without looking at the roots.
Having said that I'm don't know what I would do were I in charge but I am sure I would not have supported a distraction like the war in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
The only reason TB got support for this was the supposed WMD's, he still won't admit he was wrong.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Kit,
The concept of universal brotherhood in Islam is wrongly understood by muslims across the globe as limiting to muslims only. Under this misplaced understanding, every muslim will support a muslim terrorist as being a jihadi. Some will openly say and some will not.
The concept of universal brotherhood in Islam is wrongly understood by muslims across the globe as limiting to muslims only. Under this misplaced understanding, every muslim will support a muslim terrorist as being a jihadi. Some will openly say and some will not.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by kit
Saddam was supporting terrorist bombings.
He had nothing to do with 911, they were saudi arabian, why not invade them? Where do you think the money canme from to fund al queda, it wasn't Saddam
Saddam was supporting terrorist bombings.
He had nothing to do with 911, they were saudi arabian, why not invade them? Where do you think the money canme from to fund al queda, it wasn't Saddam
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
With Peace Train, None of this would have happened?
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by elise
Saddam had a lot to do with 9/11.
Not according to the 911 commission, forget what is in the mainstream press read the thing yourself.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
from section 10
Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.†Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence
linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling caseâ€Âthat Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional
weapons.62 On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous
from section 12
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism.At the level of high policy,Saudi Arabia’s leaders cooperated with American diplomatic initiatives aimed at theTaliban or Pakistan before 9/11.At the same time,Saudi Arabia’s society was a place where al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals
and through charities. It was the society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers.
The United States is heavily engaged in the Muslim world and will be for many years to come.This American engagement is resented. Polls in 2002 found that among America’s friends, like Egyptâ€â€the recipient of more U.S. aid for the past 20 years than any other Muslim countryâ€â€only 15 percent of the population
had a favorable opinion of the United States. In Saudi Arabia the number
was 12 percent.And two-thirds of those surveyed in 2003 in countries from Indonesia to Turkey (a NATO ally) were very or somewhat fearful that the United States may attack them.23 Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries
after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular
support for al Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that “the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S.among Muslims,which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread. . . . Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria.â€Â24 Many of these views are at best uninformed about the United States and, at worst, informed by cartoonish stereotypes, the coarse expression of a fashionable
“Occidentalism†among intellectuals who caricature U.S. values and policies. Local newspapers and the few influential satellite broadcastersâ€â€like al Jazeeraâ€â€often reinforce the jihadist theme that portrays the United States as anti-Muslim.25 The small percentage of Muslims who are fully committed to Usama Bin Ladin’s version of Islam are impervious to persuasion. It is among the large majority of Arabs and Muslims that we must encourage reform, freedom, democracy, and opportunity, even though our own promotion of these messages
is limited in its effectiveness simply because we are its carriers. Muslims themselves will have to reflect upon such basic issues as the concept of jihad, the position of women, and the place of non-Muslim minorities.The United
Saddam had a lot to do with 9/11.
Not according to the 911 commission, forget what is in the mainstream press read the thing yourself.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
from section 10
Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.†Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence
linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling caseâ€Âthat Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional
weapons.62 On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous
from section 12
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism.At the level of high policy,Saudi Arabia’s leaders cooperated with American diplomatic initiatives aimed at theTaliban or Pakistan before 9/11.At the same time,Saudi Arabia’s society was a place where al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals
and through charities. It was the society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers.
The United States is heavily engaged in the Muslim world and will be for many years to come.This American engagement is resented. Polls in 2002 found that among America’s friends, like Egyptâ€â€the recipient of more U.S. aid for the past 20 years than any other Muslim countryâ€â€only 15 percent of the population
had a favorable opinion of the United States. In Saudi Arabia the number
was 12 percent.And two-thirds of those surveyed in 2003 in countries from Indonesia to Turkey (a NATO ally) were very or somewhat fearful that the United States may attack them.23 Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries
after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular
support for al Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that “the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S.among Muslims,which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread. . . . Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria.â€Â24 Many of these views are at best uninformed about the United States and, at worst, informed by cartoonish stereotypes, the coarse expression of a fashionable
“Occidentalism†among intellectuals who caricature U.S. values and policies. Local newspapers and the few influential satellite broadcastersâ€â€like al Jazeeraâ€â€often reinforce the jihadist theme that portrays the United States as anti-Muslim.25 The small percentage of Muslims who are fully committed to Usama Bin Ladin’s version of Islam are impervious to persuasion. It is among the large majority of Arabs and Muslims that we must encourage reform, freedom, democracy, and opportunity, even though our own promotion of these messages
is limited in its effectiveness simply because we are its carriers. Muslims themselves will have to reflect upon such basic issues as the concept of jihad, the position of women, and the place of non-Muslim minorities.The United
-
LottomagicZ4941
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:00 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
I was duped into being for the war. All the wepons of mass distruction.
My dad is convinced that the wepons did exist and have been moved to Syria or somewhere like that.
It is just sad how much money and lives will be waisted on this.
Who was it that said there was never a good war or a bad peace?
I definatly think the war was a mistake and we should cut our losses.
The more we kill the more they want vengence. And do you blame them?
THis war is wrong. We are to avoid forign entanglements. We should not be the world's policemen.
If they want freedom they should earn it themselves. We are making more foes then friends and it is not worth it.
My dad is convinced that the wepons did exist and have been moved to Syria or somewhere like that.
It is just sad how much money and lives will be waisted on this.
Who was it that said there was never a good war or a bad peace?
I definatly think the war was a mistake and we should cut our losses.
The more we kill the more they want vengence. And do you blame them?
THis war is wrong. We are to avoid forign entanglements. We should not be the world's policemen.
If they want freedom they should earn it themselves. We are making more foes then friends and it is not worth it.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by kit
How does one explain why there were no 'terrorist' attacks in Iraq when Sadam was in power? Sadam was paying OBL off to keep him from interferring in Iraqi politics, such as they were.
Why the hang up with Saddam? He had nothing to do with 911 he was a nasty enough peice of work without making him a bigger bogey man.
It is your own 911 commission that is saying that quite categorically that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It's a massive distraction that has lost the US all the goodwill and support it had post 911.
If you want to believe that saddam was buying off obl and that is why there were no attacks then please do so, personally I can't see him bothering. More likely it was his police state that had more to do with it.
By the same token why would obl attack Saddam, it is the west he really hates why divert the effort.
The money came from Saudi Arabia not from Saddam, to quote the 911 commission again.
At the same time,Saudi Arabia’s society was a place where al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals
and through charities. It was the society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers.
This is not some loony left wishy washy liberal saying it it is the report of the commision set up tio investigate the attack. Why do you persist in ignoring the evidence?
Iraq had nothing to do with 911,
How does one explain why there were no 'terrorist' attacks in Iraq when Sadam was in power? Sadam was paying OBL off to keep him from interferring in Iraqi politics, such as they were.
Why the hang up with Saddam? He had nothing to do with 911 he was a nasty enough peice of work without making him a bigger bogey man.
It is your own 911 commission that is saying that quite categorically that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It's a massive distraction that has lost the US all the goodwill and support it had post 911.
If you want to believe that saddam was buying off obl and that is why there were no attacks then please do so, personally I can't see him bothering. More likely it was his police state that had more to do with it.
By the same token why would obl attack Saddam, it is the west he really hates why divert the effort.
The money came from Saudi Arabia not from Saddam, to quote the 911 commission again.
At the same time,Saudi Arabia’s society was a place where al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals
and through charities. It was the society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers.
This is not some loony left wishy washy liberal saying it it is the report of the commision set up tio investigate the attack. Why do you persist in ignoring the evidence?
Iraq had nothing to do with 911,
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
I'm not politically correct in any manner, but I even know that Iraq was not responsible for 911? It was the terrorists who did the job, then the war began?
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
History per gmc::rolleyes: :yh_frustr
Originally Posted by gmc
He had nothing to do with 911, they were saudi arabian, why not invade them? Where do you think the money canme from to fund al queda, it wasn't Saddam
1] There were 19 terrorists plus OBL.
2] The 19 came from Saudi Arabia.
3] The 19 died in their stolen airplanes on 911.
4] Saddam was just a "good ol boy" that tortured and killed only his own people, and made war only on his neighbors.
5] Now instead of just 19 Saudi terrorists, the bad USA is forcing thousands of fine mid Eastern young men to give up their careers of selfless service to mankind, in order to keep the US bullies from cruelly forcing freedom on the formerly happy Iraqi people.
6] OBL is still at large because the US would rather invade Iraq than find him.
yadayadayada
Originally Posted by gmc
He had nothing to do with 911, they were saudi arabian, why not invade them? Where do you think the money canme from to fund al queda, it wasn't Saddam
1] There were 19 terrorists plus OBL.
2] The 19 came from Saudi Arabia.
3] The 19 died in their stolen airplanes on 911.
4] Saddam was just a "good ol boy" that tortured and killed only his own people, and made war only on his neighbors.
5] Now instead of just 19 Saudi terrorists, the bad USA is forcing thousands of fine mid Eastern young men to give up their careers of selfless service to mankind, in order to keep the US bullies from cruelly forcing freedom on the formerly happy Iraqi people.
6] OBL is still at large because the US would rather invade Iraq than find him.
yadayadayada
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by der wulf
History per gmc:
Originally Posted by gmc
He had nothing to do with 911, they were saudi arabian, why not invade them? Where do you think the money canme from to fund al queda, it wasn't Saddam
1] There were 19 terrorists plus OBL.
2] The 19 came from Saudi Arabia.
3] The 19 died in their stolen airplanes on 911.
4] Saddam was just a "good ol boy" that tortured and killed only his own people, and made war only on his neighbors.
5] Now instead of just 19 Saudi terrorists, the bad USA is forcing thousands of fine mid Eastern young men to give up their careers of selfless service to mankind, in order to keep the US bullies from cruelly forcing freedom on the formerly happy Iraqi people.
6] OBL is still at large because the US would rather invade Iraq than find him.
yadayadayada
What point are you trying to make?
4] Saddam was just a "good ol boy" that tortured and killed only his own people, and made war only on his neighbors.
5] Now instead of just 19 Saudi terrorists, the bad USA is forcing thousands of fine mid Eastern young men to give up their careers of selfless service to mankind, in order to keep the US bullies from cruelly forcing freedom on the formerly happy Iraqi people.
6] OBL is still at large because the US would rather invade Iraq than find him.
yadayadayada
I did not say that. Clearly I think the unilateral invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. That does not mean I support Saddam Hussein and nowhere have I defended him, as it happens I think the time to go after him was at the end of the first gulf war, it would also have been better if the west had not stood by and let him put dowm the shia rebellion after having incited it.
You still do not disagree with factual content of my main points, saddam had nothing to do with 911 and the terrorists were saudi-or at least 14 of them were.
So what point are you trying to make if any? Do you think the Saudi's on the plane were really Iraqui? This was from the report compiled by the 911 commission. Do you think the report is in error, if so why?
I don't mind people disagreeing with me it is one of the reasons I like this forum as there is no fun talking about such things with someone who just agrees with you, neither benefit. But yadayyadadayada? Please you can do better than that. Agree to disagree if you like but that is not worthy of you. If that is the level of political debate in america then you really are in trouble.
History per gmc:
Originally Posted by gmc
He had nothing to do with 911, they were saudi arabian, why not invade them? Where do you think the money canme from to fund al queda, it wasn't Saddam
1] There were 19 terrorists plus OBL.
2] The 19 came from Saudi Arabia.
3] The 19 died in their stolen airplanes on 911.
4] Saddam was just a "good ol boy" that tortured and killed only his own people, and made war only on his neighbors.
5] Now instead of just 19 Saudi terrorists, the bad USA is forcing thousands of fine mid Eastern young men to give up their careers of selfless service to mankind, in order to keep the US bullies from cruelly forcing freedom on the formerly happy Iraqi people.
6] OBL is still at large because the US would rather invade Iraq than find him.
yadayadayada
What point are you trying to make?
4] Saddam was just a "good ol boy" that tortured and killed only his own people, and made war only on his neighbors.
5] Now instead of just 19 Saudi terrorists, the bad USA is forcing thousands of fine mid Eastern young men to give up their careers of selfless service to mankind, in order to keep the US bullies from cruelly forcing freedom on the formerly happy Iraqi people.
6] OBL is still at large because the US would rather invade Iraq than find him.
yadayadayada
I did not say that. Clearly I think the unilateral invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. That does not mean I support Saddam Hussein and nowhere have I defended him, as it happens I think the time to go after him was at the end of the first gulf war, it would also have been better if the west had not stood by and let him put dowm the shia rebellion after having incited it.
You still do not disagree with factual content of my main points, saddam had nothing to do with 911 and the terrorists were saudi-or at least 14 of them were.
So what point are you trying to make if any? Do you think the Saudi's on the plane were really Iraqui? This was from the report compiled by the 911 commission. Do you think the report is in error, if so why?
I don't mind people disagreeing with me it is one of the reasons I like this forum as there is no fun talking about such things with someone who just agrees with you, neither benefit. But yadayyadadayada? Please you can do better than that. Agree to disagree if you like but that is not worthy of you. If that is the level of political debate in america then you really are in trouble.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
gmc wrote:
So what point are you trying to make if any?
I have acheived precisely what I hoped for. It got you off your single point "American Baiting", and caused you to declare a couple of more broadbased opions worthy of debate, and providing some much appreciated insight.
You and I have posted on this issue before, to my disappointment, you disappeared when we got to substantive issues. I am extremely puzzled by what I'll term the Euro mindset regarding America, and the mid East. I'm frustrated by the refusal of you and others to get beyond "sound bytes" [example: Iraq did not attack America], and honestly debate the entire issue in context.
For example you stated ".....as it happens I think the time to go after him was at the end of the first gulf war, it would also have been better if the west had not stood by and let him put dowm the shia rebellion after having incited it."
The vast majority of Americans, with a memory span beyond 1 year, would agree with that completely. Unfortunately, as part of a UN supported coalition, we listened to the accusations of being "bully's", and backed off. That issue contributed to Bush Sr. losing a second term.
We need accurate history to put our actions in context, we did not take action in Iraq on a whim, or for the nonsensical reasons espoused by the ignorant and shallow minded.
So my friend, I offer you the challange again, can we debate this with intellegence and honesty, are we grown up enough to exchange ideas and sharp points without taking or giving petty insults? This thread or another, you choose. I promise yada etc. has been recaged until the next major frustration. :yh_wait :yh_peace
So what point are you trying to make if any?
I have acheived precisely what I hoped for. It got you off your single point "American Baiting", and caused you to declare a couple of more broadbased opions worthy of debate, and providing some much appreciated insight.
You and I have posted on this issue before, to my disappointment, you disappeared when we got to substantive issues. I am extremely puzzled by what I'll term the Euro mindset regarding America, and the mid East. I'm frustrated by the refusal of you and others to get beyond "sound bytes" [example: Iraq did not attack America], and honestly debate the entire issue in context.
For example you stated ".....as it happens I think the time to go after him was at the end of the first gulf war, it would also have been better if the west had not stood by and let him put dowm the shia rebellion after having incited it."
The vast majority of Americans, with a memory span beyond 1 year, would agree with that completely. Unfortunately, as part of a UN supported coalition, we listened to the accusations of being "bully's", and backed off. That issue contributed to Bush Sr. losing a second term.
We need accurate history to put our actions in context, we did not take action in Iraq on a whim, or for the nonsensical reasons espoused by the ignorant and shallow minded.
So my friend, I offer you the challange again, can we debate this with intellegence and honesty, are we grown up enough to exchange ideas and sharp points without taking or giving petty insults? This thread or another, you choose. I promise yada etc. has been recaged until the next major frustration. :yh_wait :yh_peace
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by der wulf
I have acheived precisely what I hoped for. It got you off your single point "American Baiting", and caused you to declare a couple of more broadbased opions worthy of debate, and providing some much appreciated insight.
You and I have posted on this issue before, to my disappointment, you disappeared when we got to substantive issues. I am extremely puzzled by what I'll term the Euro mindset regarding America, and the mid East. I'm frustrated by the refusal of you and others to get beyond "sound bytes" [example: Iraq did not attack America], and honestly debate the entire issue in context.
I too get frustrated by what seems to be an american propensity to take adverse comment about US policy in the mid east as being anti american and american baiting without consideration of what is actually said. That quote I used is from the 911 commission report yet no one seems to get the point that iraq had at best an extremely tenuous connectuion to al queda. saddam was hated by the fundamentalists so in what way does invading Iraq help in the fight against terrorism and why do so many americans seem to think he was responsible?
So far the only response has been accusations of american baiting and you are either with us or against us type of dialogue. Yet the simple fact that he had nothing to do with 911 gets ignored. In a way it's like displacement activity, never mind the real problem let's deal with this because we can and i don't really want to raise the possibility that the govt, might be wrong.
For the record TB lied to parliament to get the support to send in British troops. I watched the debate at the time with total disbelief as the UK parliament voted in support of an action based on evidence that was quite clearly ridiculous. The basis of his arguement was not about fighting terrorism but that saddam had WMD's ready to attack the UK which only a half wit would have given any credence to. Had it simply been to topple saddam then he would have not got the support. As it was the anti war protests were the largest spontaneous demonstrations the UK has seen for a long time.
So far the only people to have lost their jobs over it are those who had the temerity to point out the bullshit. We now have the most serious attack on our personal freedoms taking place all in the guise of fighting terrorism. That bothers me a lot more than what happens in america. On the other hand a militaristic US with a stated policy of pre-emptive warfare against it's perceived enemies is slightly alarming. US politics seem to have become sharply polarised with little common ground between factions. Yaboo politics as we would call it here.
I'm sorry if you think I am "american baiting" don't take this the wrong way but you seem so thin skinned there is no challenge in it. Any criticism seems to get taken personally as being anti american for no apparent reason.
If you think the UK press is hostile to the US administration you should see what they have to say about the EU, yet any criticism of the French government is not looked on as being anti the french people, similarly we don't take it personally when they call us "rosbifs" and worse. Unless it's at a football match but that is a special case. Actually i can think of a lot more insults for european countries than i can for americans.
The one that really irritates me is the if you don't support the war you support terrorism arguement which is so patently ridiculous that there is no point answering it as the intention of such a statement is to change the subject and avoid thinking about it.
So my friend, I offer you the challange again, can we debate this with intellegence and honesty, are we grown up enough to exchange ideas and sharp points without taking or giving petty insults? This thread or another, you choose. I promise yada etc. has been recaged until the next major frustration.
That is exactly what I want to do. I am not aware of where I have been indulging in petty insults. though I have, I think, received a few. but having been insulted innumerable times I no longer pay attention. So if any offence has been given it was unintended and not understood as to where the offence was and I apologise. Believe me i would not waste my time trading insults with total strangers. What would be the point?
At worst you can at least agree to disagree, sometimes you will change or have changed an opinion.
The vast majority of Americans, with a memory span beyond 1 year, would agree with that completely. Unfortunately, as part of a UN supported coalition, we listened to the accusations of being "bully's", and backed off. That issue contributed to Bush Sr. losing a second term.
If I remember correctly one of the reasons was that the middle east countries were the ones most against regime change, all the time it was to get him out of Kuwait not to depose him since that should be left up to the Iraquis.
to pick up on one of your earlier points
posted by der wulf
I think, as phrased, the question would evoke a "brain search" input of "cost benefit ratio", and yield a pavlovian response in financial terms.
How about a simpler questian like "will the war in Iraq yield any benefit to the United States". If I were seeking a more thoughtful answer, I would list some "things" of value like monetary, moral, status, etc.
What benefit do you think it will have?
and to reiterate my earlier question. Why do so many americans apparently think Saddam was responsible for 911?
You and I have posted on this issue before, to my disappointment, you disappeared when we got to substantive issues.
My apologies I couldn't find it again, usually I just go in to new posts but if you don't post anything they disappear until someone posts again and I ommitted to note the title and could not for the life of me find it again.
Some of my neighbours are setting off fireworks, currently i have a terrified 71/2 stone dog trying to sit on my lap so I shall have to go. Apart from that I want to make my English wife watch Braveheart which is a film about a six foot plus Scottish folk hero played by a diminutive Australian, such is hollywood.
I have acheived precisely what I hoped for. It got you off your single point "American Baiting", and caused you to declare a couple of more broadbased opions worthy of debate, and providing some much appreciated insight.
You and I have posted on this issue before, to my disappointment, you disappeared when we got to substantive issues. I am extremely puzzled by what I'll term the Euro mindset regarding America, and the mid East. I'm frustrated by the refusal of you and others to get beyond "sound bytes" [example: Iraq did not attack America], and honestly debate the entire issue in context.
I too get frustrated by what seems to be an american propensity to take adverse comment about US policy in the mid east as being anti american and american baiting without consideration of what is actually said. That quote I used is from the 911 commission report yet no one seems to get the point that iraq had at best an extremely tenuous connectuion to al queda. saddam was hated by the fundamentalists so in what way does invading Iraq help in the fight against terrorism and why do so many americans seem to think he was responsible?
So far the only response has been accusations of american baiting and you are either with us or against us type of dialogue. Yet the simple fact that he had nothing to do with 911 gets ignored. In a way it's like displacement activity, never mind the real problem let's deal with this because we can and i don't really want to raise the possibility that the govt, might be wrong.
For the record TB lied to parliament to get the support to send in British troops. I watched the debate at the time with total disbelief as the UK parliament voted in support of an action based on evidence that was quite clearly ridiculous. The basis of his arguement was not about fighting terrorism but that saddam had WMD's ready to attack the UK which only a half wit would have given any credence to. Had it simply been to topple saddam then he would have not got the support. As it was the anti war protests were the largest spontaneous demonstrations the UK has seen for a long time.
So far the only people to have lost their jobs over it are those who had the temerity to point out the bullshit. We now have the most serious attack on our personal freedoms taking place all in the guise of fighting terrorism. That bothers me a lot more than what happens in america. On the other hand a militaristic US with a stated policy of pre-emptive warfare against it's perceived enemies is slightly alarming. US politics seem to have become sharply polarised with little common ground between factions. Yaboo politics as we would call it here.
I'm sorry if you think I am "american baiting" don't take this the wrong way but you seem so thin skinned there is no challenge in it. Any criticism seems to get taken personally as being anti american for no apparent reason.
If you think the UK press is hostile to the US administration you should see what they have to say about the EU, yet any criticism of the French government is not looked on as being anti the french people, similarly we don't take it personally when they call us "rosbifs" and worse. Unless it's at a football match but that is a special case. Actually i can think of a lot more insults for european countries than i can for americans.
The one that really irritates me is the if you don't support the war you support terrorism arguement which is so patently ridiculous that there is no point answering it as the intention of such a statement is to change the subject and avoid thinking about it.
So my friend, I offer you the challange again, can we debate this with intellegence and honesty, are we grown up enough to exchange ideas and sharp points without taking or giving petty insults? This thread or another, you choose. I promise yada etc. has been recaged until the next major frustration.
That is exactly what I want to do. I am not aware of where I have been indulging in petty insults. though I have, I think, received a few. but having been insulted innumerable times I no longer pay attention. So if any offence has been given it was unintended and not understood as to where the offence was and I apologise. Believe me i would not waste my time trading insults with total strangers. What would be the point?
At worst you can at least agree to disagree, sometimes you will change or have changed an opinion.
The vast majority of Americans, with a memory span beyond 1 year, would agree with that completely. Unfortunately, as part of a UN supported coalition, we listened to the accusations of being "bully's", and backed off. That issue contributed to Bush Sr. losing a second term.
If I remember correctly one of the reasons was that the middle east countries were the ones most against regime change, all the time it was to get him out of Kuwait not to depose him since that should be left up to the Iraquis.
to pick up on one of your earlier points
posted by der wulf
I think, as phrased, the question would evoke a "brain search" input of "cost benefit ratio", and yield a pavlovian response in financial terms.
How about a simpler questian like "will the war in Iraq yield any benefit to the United States". If I were seeking a more thoughtful answer, I would list some "things" of value like monetary, moral, status, etc.
What benefit do you think it will have?
and to reiterate my earlier question. Why do so many americans apparently think Saddam was responsible for 911?
You and I have posted on this issue before, to my disappointment, you disappeared when we got to substantive issues.
My apologies I couldn't find it again, usually I just go in to new posts but if you don't post anything they disappear until someone posts again and I ommitted to note the title and could not for the life of me find it again.
Some of my neighbours are setting off fireworks, currently i have a terrified 71/2 stone dog trying to sit on my lap so I shall have to go. Apart from that I want to make my English wife watch Braveheart which is a film about a six foot plus Scottish folk hero played by a diminutive Australian, such is hollywood.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
I don't like G.W. Bush. He will never bring peace to our world.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
Hoo K you two, I guess ya think this yank is stupid enuf to get whipsawed between a Scot, and an Irishman on two related but seperate subjects, in a tag team match.
Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish.
Capt. Buzzard, I'm comin to Dublin to discuss Dubyah, and the Scot's affectation for skirts. Put on the kettle :sneaky:
Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish.
Capt. Buzzard, I'm comin to Dublin to discuss Dubyah, and the Scot's affectation for skirts. Put on the kettle :sneaky:
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by der wulf
Hoo K you two, I guess ya think this yank is stupid enuf to get whipsawed between a Scot, and an Irishman on two related but seperate subjects, in a tag team match.
Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish.
Capt. Buzzard, I'm comin to Dublin to discuss Dubyah, and the Scot's affectation for skirts. Put on the kettle
__________________
I don't want to war with anyone, discuss yes. I'm not even sure there is too much we actually disagree on. Just because someone disagrees with you about something does not mean they want to fight about it. Conflict is something to engage in as a last resort.
Hoo K you two, I guess ya think this yank is stupid enuf to get whipsawed between a Scot, and an Irishman on two related but seperate subjects, in a tag team match.
Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish.
Capt. Buzzard, I'm comin to Dublin to discuss Dubyah, and the Scot's affectation for skirts. Put on the kettle
__________________
I don't want to war with anyone, discuss yes. I'm not even sure there is too much we actually disagree on. Just because someone disagrees with you about something does not mean they want to fight about it. Conflict is something to engage in as a last resort.
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
seems to be alot of seasonal depression around lately? everyone is at arms with one-another? PEACE its better for you! :-6
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
LottomagicZ4941
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:00 pm
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." -
Theodore Roosevelt
Wonder if G W thinks Thedore Roosevelt is a terrorist?
president, or that we are to stand by the president
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." -
Theodore Roosevelt
Wonder if G W thinks Thedore Roosevelt is a terrorist?
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
gmc wrote: __________________
I don't want to war with anyone, discuss yes. I'm not even sure there is too much we actually disagree on. Just because someone disagrees with you about something does not mean they want to fight about it. Conflict is something to engage in as a last resort.
Oh c'mon gmc, are you really that dour and obtuse? How can you take a light hearted --"Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish." ---give it a perjorative spin, and construe it as a challange to fight??
I'll admit that the sentence structure could have been better, but I enjoy using an idiomatic style approximating two friends engaged in verbal conversation. I've spent 40 yrs writing and proof reading technical documents and instructions, tis a pedantic, stultifying, and repetitious methodology that assures a minimal chance of misinterpetation. I'd really like to think that's not necessary in order for for us to exchange ideas, and prevent your being offended.
Let's give this another try, this thread has been labled "last page", so we'll need a fresh start. Would you like to pick a forum and title, and start the new thread? If this thread is closed, you can PM me to disclose the new location. Alternatively, if you prefer that I start the new thread, please inform me in the same manner.
I don't want to war with anyone, discuss yes. I'm not even sure there is too much we actually disagree on. Just because someone disagrees with you about something does not mean they want to fight about it. Conflict is something to engage in as a last resort.
Oh c'mon gmc, are you really that dour and obtuse? How can you take a light hearted --"Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish." ---give it a perjorative spin, and construe it as a challange to fight??
I'll admit that the sentence structure could have been better, but I enjoy using an idiomatic style approximating two friends engaged in verbal conversation. I've spent 40 yrs writing and proof reading technical documents and instructions, tis a pedantic, stultifying, and repetitious methodology that assures a minimal chance of misinterpetation. I'd really like to think that's not necessary in order for for us to exchange ideas, and prevent your being offended.
Let's give this another try, this thread has been labled "last page", so we'll need a fresh start. Would you like to pick a forum and title, and start the new thread? If this thread is closed, you can PM me to disclose the new location. Alternatively, if you prefer that I start the new thread, please inform me in the same manner.
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
To LottoMagic:
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.
Margaret Chase Smith
:yh_flag Do ya spose Teddy Roosevelt thought "moral character" was irrevelant?
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.
Margaret Chase Smith
:yh_flag Do ya spose Teddy Roosevelt thought "moral character" was irrevelant?
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.
posted by der wulf
Oh c'mon gmc, are you really that dour and obtuse? How can you take a light hearted --"Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish." ---give it a perjorative spin, and construe it as a challange to fight??
A lot gets lost in a written post doesn't it. You were the one accusing me of single point american baiting leaving me thinking, where,. what have i done to give offence? Naturally i was at pains not to antagonise you further. But since i seem not to have all to the good. Don't take this the wrong way but i find myself being careful what i say as general comments seem to be taken as personal which I just cannot understand since on a forum like this nothing can actually be personal since you don't really know the other person.
Maybe as a scot I should be dour and obtuse but I don't want people mistaking me for a wee free and most of the time I find it difficult to be dour for very long. Bear in mind this is hogmanay, the time when all the problems of the last year are thrown out with the last rubbish of the year and you start again, apart from that i am still on holiday. Being miserable is a life choice I choose not to make. Having just consumed three cans of beer I feel quite mellow at present. Millers as it happens because some relative thinks I like it and gave me a crate. Why is american beer so weak? (OK it's made under licence in Edinburgh at least it's not as disgusting as tennents). Ever wonder why scots invented whisky? Because we make crap beer.
When you wake up you still haven't answered my questions. It is still one you seem loathe to answer. I would also add what do you reckon to the project for the new american century? How influential are they really?
Abdullah if you are really a muslim your opinion would be of interest. If not what are you playing at?
Happy new year
Oh c'mon gmc, are you really that dour and obtuse? How can you take a light hearted --"Tell ya what, it's 1 AM here and I'm needing a nap, I'll meet you here later gmc, we'll have a drink, take up the war again, and crack jokes about the Irish." ---give it a perjorative spin, and construe it as a challange to fight??
A lot gets lost in a written post doesn't it. You were the one accusing me of single point american baiting leaving me thinking, where,. what have i done to give offence? Naturally i was at pains not to antagonise you further. But since i seem not to have all to the good. Don't take this the wrong way but i find myself being careful what i say as general comments seem to be taken as personal which I just cannot understand since on a forum like this nothing can actually be personal since you don't really know the other person.
Maybe as a scot I should be dour and obtuse but I don't want people mistaking me for a wee free and most of the time I find it difficult to be dour for very long. Bear in mind this is hogmanay, the time when all the problems of the last year are thrown out with the last rubbish of the year and you start again, apart from that i am still on holiday. Being miserable is a life choice I choose not to make. Having just consumed three cans of beer I feel quite mellow at present. Millers as it happens because some relative thinks I like it and gave me a crate. Why is american beer so weak? (OK it's made under licence in Edinburgh at least it's not as disgusting as tennents). Ever wonder why scots invented whisky? Because we make crap beer.
When you wake up you still haven't answered my questions. It is still one you seem loathe to answer. I would also add what do you reckon to the project for the new american century? How influential are they really?
Abdullah if you are really a muslim your opinion would be of interest. If not what are you playing at?
Happy new year