BS: Most Iraquis better off

Subject: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 03:30 AM

An opinion poll by an Oxford based firm found that 70% believed their lives had improved over the last year, and almost all expected improvement in the year to come.
Sadaam would have gone eventually anyway, and transitions tend to be bloody. Maybe we didn't do such a bad job?

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 03:36 AM

made for very funny listening on Radio 4 this morning. We had the interesting contrast of john Humphreys lovingly getting stuck into the latest "Tony Blair murdered David kelly"-type story, and then having to grit his teeth and read out "most Iraqis think things are going rather well actually" (carefully adding, via tone of voice alone, "poor little deluded Arab buggers, what do they know, they dont have the benefit of the Today programme").

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 04:11 AM

The rest of the statistics

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 04:20 AM

I know a lot of Iraqis who I see on a regular almost daily basis, so I have acquired a feel for the changes that are in the air in casual conversation. Certainly the results of this poll ring true in terms of what the people I know are thinking( as far is that is evidenced in small talk).As well, there is the growing number of people who have,or are actively contemplating and planning, going over there for a visit, for example. This was virtually unheard of a year ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: kendall
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:06 AM

Did anyone interview the dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: InOBU
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:24 AM

Kendall my brother, ya beat me to it. The friend speaks my mind. Kill enough folks who don't agree, and the percent of folks you agree with rises. Barbaric. Cheers Larry
PS It backfired in Viet Nam, created a regionalized war, which we were bound to loose. Those who don't learn from history...

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:26 AM

Cant agree with that theory, Larry. Saddam killed millions(literally, I believe), but the percentage of people agreeing with him didnt seem to go up much.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:28 AM

..collecting reliable statistics in a country where you could be executed for showing dissent is an interesting process.

people in Iraq are deeply distrustful of any official agencies, for very good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:28 AM

Wasn't any official agencies involved in the study being referred to, and I don't suppose that greg's friends regard him as an official agency.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: kendall
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:34 AM

I have a hard time believing ANYTHING my government tells me after The Gulf of Tonkin non incident, Watergate, Iran Contra, Arms for hostages Granada, Panama and the latest pack of lies, WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Sam L
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:38 AM

Nevertheless, I'd rather hope for the best than hope I'll get to say I told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: mooman
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:45 AM

I'm pleased to hear it and they certainly deserve to be.

But it still seems like a monstrous quagmire of an awful mess in Iraq to me and I can't personally see how it will pan out.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:51 AM

I absoltely do not trust a word any goverments,the Guardian, the BBC,Al Quaida or any other bodies tell me. I am familiar with the standarsds of honesty of those people. But I do tend to place more weight on slowly built up impressions over periods of time from people I know well: because you then get into a position where you can weigh the evidence a little more carefully. What my Afghan friends told me turned out to much more right han anything the BBC or the government said about the situation there. I have the feeling that the same will go for what I hear from iraq. I may, of course, be totally wrong, and events can always take unexpected turns.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Deda
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:58 AM

Maybe we didn't do such a bad thing? I'm not too clear on this "we" thing. Halliburton is making a tidy profit. All the reconstruction contracts are being handed out to US companies, none to locals, no matter how capable they may be. Can you say "war profiteering"? How about "looting"? "Cronyism"? It isn't only the Iraqi dead who haven't been interviewed -- it's the newly homeless, the newly para- and quadriplegic, the newly widowed and orphaned. We've sure opened up a world of great opportunities for them!

I think that if the US had never propped Saddam up in the first place, he would have been out of power long ago. And if "our oil" hadn't somehow been misplaced under their sand, we would have let them work out their own destiny; we would have let them learn to fish, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 10:20 AM

Deda,

You're absolutely priceless, best laugh I've had today - thanks.

Especially liked the last bit, "...we would have let them work out their own destiny; we would have let them learn to fish, so to speak."

It would have had to have been "so to speak" if you had been a Marsh Arab, living in the South, as Saddam forceably displaced about a million of them, then drained their marshes (where couldn't do that he contaminated the water). Prior to Saddam, who it appears you would have preferred to remain in power until ???, turning his malevolent and beady eyes on the Ma'adan, their fishing industry used to supply about 66,000 tonnes of fish a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:07 AM

Teribus:

You ad hominem sarcasm is uncivil and irrelevant; and furthermore you do not address the possibility that left tot heir own devices, and without the earlier US support on Saddam's side, the history of the region might have been very different. In any case, whether deleting Saddam was a positive step of not, the fact remains that a huge wave of pain, loss, injury, and dislocation has been caused by the Bush decision to take the Iraq issue to a war level and invade. That single murderous decision has cost thousands of lives.

Good think, at least, that we got a regime change out of all those corpses.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:28 AM

St.Amos - You Sanctimonious Prat,

Pity in that burst of righteous indignation you did not refer to the millions of deaths Saddam was responsible for, and whose number he would have continued to add to.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:47 AM

Things going better in Iraq? I sure as hell hope so! After all they've only got 87 million of our tax money to make it so and alot of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to act as civil servants.

As I have said before I had no doubt we'd win. But why were the millions that Saddam killed not enough back in '91? Why did we leave the Kurds and Sunis to fight alone when we suggested the insurrection?

Ever heard that the ends don't justify the means?
1. Weapons of Mass Delusion
2. Imminent threat
3. Connections to Al Quaida

None have yet proven true (and it's now been a year) so all we're hearing is how much better the poor Iraqis are without Saddam.

I guess nobody watched the news to se how Spain paid for supporting the US as we the nay sayers said was a probable reaction by terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 03:35 PM

Teribus...I admire your debating skills very much although I seldom agree with you,(you'll be pleased to hear).
However, that attack on Amos was well beneath you, especially on this thread ,in which the the result of the poll surely depended on which Iraqis were being interviewed.
How do you get an objective cross section of opinion in Iraq?
       Best wishes Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 03:59 PM

If it's true that most Iraqis think things are better than they were before the invasion, that's one good thing anyway, obviously. But I note that, even so, there isn't a majority in favour of the invasion.

The real question, and we'll newver know the asnswer to this, is whether if it had been handled differently that kind of outcome could have been achieved without all the bloodshed. After all, the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam haven't been the only things that have changed there has also been an end to the sanctions.

I suspect that that might have been one reason why some Iraqis who think the invasion was a mistake apparently think that things have got better.


(Aren't Iraquis Native Americans?)

..................

I'd suggest that Teribus (and everyone else, on either side of the argument) who feels like snapping out a comment like the one addressed to Amos in that last post, buttons his lip, goes off and has a cuppa, and comes back and writes something that helps keep the discussion on an even keel. "Never say anything here you wouldn't say face to face" is a good principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 04:04 PM

Could I register a modest plea that Amos and Teribus stop thinking up wounding insults for each other, and have a little think about Iraqis opinions on these matters, which are actually more important than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:10 PM

"Could I register a modest plea that Amos and Teribus stop thinking up wounding insults for each other"

please, don't smear Amos with Teribus' comments.

this opinion poll results have been released just after the Spanish election loss over the war in Iraq issue - just a further attempt at manipulating public opinion .

opinion polls in Iraq are like a fish riding a bicycle.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:20 PM

Well, maybe Teribus is right -- I am a sanctimonious pratt, at least some of the time. So is he.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that getting Saddam out of Iraq was thebest thing we could do for them.

It has never been explained to me why we chose to do it, though, as distinguished from any other tin-hat dictator. Why Iraq? If it was NOT for any of the reaosns offered, then why was it? (I am NOT asking how could we rationalize it. I am asking what the real motive was before the act.)

In any case, I think it was an unwise course of action, given the array of possible choices. But that is just my opinion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:03 PM

Like I've said over and over... Most polls don't mean a danged thing because of their design. They are terribly flawed, You give me used car salesman and a statistician and I can get you a decent approval rating for Hitler in Isreal...

As for the little T-Bird/Amos sidebar? Hey, I don't see no blood on the floor and they are afterall... both grown men. So you all have it. Plus it keep T-Bird too busy to be assigning me lengthy homework assigments readin' folks who agree with him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:13 PM

And you are entitled to it, Amos my friend. It seems most people agree that Iraq is better off without Saddam. If, however, the Bush administration had given regime change as the reason for invading Iraq, those of you who are criticizing the invasion would still be doing so. Many of you don't WANT the Bush strategy to work so nothing he could have done would meet with your approval. Had weapons of mass destruction been found, you would still have moaned and groaned because the Iraqi people have been freed of Saddam, and will someday have a free democratic society.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:25 PM

Had weapons of mass destruction been found, you would still have moaned and groaned because the Iraqi people have been freed of Saddam, and will someday have a free democratic society.



Sorry to say so , Doug, but you misunderestimate me seriously with that clandestine remarkable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:58 PM

"...you would still have moaned and groaned because the Iraqi people have been freed of Saddam."

Now you know that implication that people who disagree with you liked Saddam is not true, Doug, so why say it?

So there are disagrements, but what you said there is about as unfair as if I were to write "The real reason Doug backed the war was because he wanted to see Arabs dying in reprisal for what happoened on 911!".

And I wouldn't write that (outside those kind of quotes), because I know it'd be a lie, and I don't believe in making up lies about friends (or anyone for that matter), just because I'm engaged in an argument about something that I care about.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: kendall
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:30 PM

Doug, what we "Would" have said is irrelevent. What is, is. And what is is Bush lied, and he continues to lie.

In my other post I said that I dont believe anything my government tells me. That includes all those stories about how Saddam murdered thousands of Kurds and Shiites. Considering that Bush has lied about everything else, how do we know this is true? Maybe it is, but that gang in and around the White House has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Remember the boy who cried "Wolf"?

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:32 PM

And further more if it was "regime change" that Bush wanted he could have done it without a war. Think "single bullet" here.

No lets review all the reasons *given* for attacking Iraq:

1. Mushroom clouds overhead. Remember that one by Condi Rice?

2. Aluminum tubes capable of making nuclear weapons.

3. Attempts to purchase high grade uranium from Africa.

4. 45 minute readiness to attack the US.

5. Drones that would drop chemicals on the US.

6. Biological weapons.

7. Chemical weapons.

Ahhh, tell me when I've hit one that was based on fact, will ya?

8. Saddam is a bad man and therefore we had to attack his country.

9. Saddam gased the Kurds. Yeah, with our gas and with our approval.

10. Well, Saddam, gassed Irans. Yeah, with our gas and out approval.

11. Iragis wanted us to attack them so they could have democracy.

12. Blah, blah, blah.......

Any facts yet? No, geeze you all are hard to please...

Come on, Dougie, et al. Jus' fess up that Bush has messed this one up purdy good. If you're gonna stick with the party line then your creditbility goes out the window on other issues. Jus' fess up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:12 PM

Maybe I don't understand, but didn't W explicitly state (before his election/appointment) that we wouldn't indulge in nation building?

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 02:53 AM

"Had weapons of mass destruction been found, you would still have moaned and groaned because the Iraqi people have been freed of Saddam, and will someday have a free democratic society."

I was highly pist by that, but now that I've thought about it a while I think I see DougR's viewpoint. He has such profound loyalty to George W. Bush, that he feels that anybody who could criticise him is a limb of Satan, and so in league with all the other evil-doers, like Saddam. It's not that he can't understand proof that Bush lies; it's just of no consequence to him. Doug follows his master, right or wrong.

Of course I, as an elderly godless anarchist hippie, feel that giving unquestioning loyalty to the leader of the pack is a fine thing in a dog, but unworthy of a thinking human being.

He feels, of course, that his position is honorable since independent thought is not of value to him. His not to reason why.

It's a pretty basic disagreement. I don't know what to do about it. Makes most of our discussions futile; we just talk past each other.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 04:24 AM

Doug R.---you list all the things claimed by Bush and Blair and their toadies to be fact before they used them to justify the invasion of Iraq---and that after ten glorious years of bombing and strafing and blockading which could hardly have failed to leave that beleaguered nation in a militarily defenceless position. Saddam was an abomination as far as much of the Iraqi populace was concerned; but, face it---you wouldn't have to travel far to find other "national leaders" who fit the description--not even very far over your own borders. You have no right at all to assume that all those who opposed the invasion of Iraq would have been of the same mind had even SOME of the truth been told. ALL of the truth was out of the question; do you feel like forecasting a complete absence of American military bases in Iraq in, say, ten years time?
   And, Teribus, ---it would appear to me that the only incidence of mass murder that seems to be of any interest to "the coalition of the willing" tends to occur in areas of the world which have some strategic or economic significance to this current batch of grabbers.
Where was this "poll" taken, by the way? Did they concentrate their inquiries in Tikrit, say, or Baghdad, or maybe Basra? Or was the poll kind of weighted towards the Kurdish areas? We don't know, do we? It does seem, however, that those who DON'T agree that they are "better off" are very keen to kill as many coalition occupation troops as they can, and are entusiastically assisted nowadays by an influx of El Qaeda terrorists who weren't allowed a foothold under the old regime. Better off? Some Iraqis may well be; the world is infinitely worse off.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 05:05 AM

I think it is possible to give this poll some credence(possibly not a lot) because iy was commissioned by the BBC, who have in the past year or two taken a very anti Blair and Bush line.
As to Kendall not believing that Saddam massacred Kurds. Well, some statements are honestly not worth answering.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 05:12 AM

Guest Boab,

I believe the poll was taken by the BBC in Baghdad. I dare say that all those who say that polls are meaningless, do not reflect anything of significance and can be "engineered" to get a desired result, that they would have been more than happy to accept it as gospel if the results had declared that those polled believed that Iraq was worse off.

For over 18 months the BBC has been stridently anti-war and anti-Bush/Blair, at times to the extent that their reporting has been down-right untrue. They have continually exaggerated the negative, irrespective of what their reporters have been submitting. So people in this forum expect me to believe that the BBC went out of their way to "engineer" a poll to state that all was rosy in the garden - Sorry don't buy that, it just doesn't fly.

So kendall doesn't believe what his government tells him, doesn't believe that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's were murdered by Saddam because that is what his government tells him - What about exactly the same reports coming from other sources - Are you prepared to believe those kendall? Probably not because then you would have to admit to the fact that your government had been telling you the truth - and that would never do would it?

Bush told the American people and the rest of the world lies? No he didn't. What the last American administration, the present American administration, the United Nations, Iraq's neighbours in the region and most of the world's governments believed to be the case in Iraq was exactly the same throughout the period from mid-90's to March 2003.

Bobert's, "regime change" = "single bullet" is ridiculous. His list is complete spin. Bobert if you are going to put up such lists then please do us all the favour of detailing the points factually and accurately - otherwise don't bother, as in the form you normally come out with they neither illustrate the point you are wishing to make or prove anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:21 AM

No government leader like "single bullet solutions" involving their opposite numbers. There's a sort of informal agreement to leave each other alone. The equivalent of the old MAD nuclear stand-off, but on an individual level.

.................

I took it that kendall's comment about Saddam's massacres was not really about Saddam as about the way that the practice of misinformation carried out by our governments makes people sceptical, even when what they say is true. (The figure of speech involved is, think, technically called "aporia".)

That interpretation is strengthened by the fact kendall closed with the reference to the boy who cried "Wolf" too often - the point was, in the story, there really was a wolf, amd the wolf did indeed come, but the boy had taught other people to disregard what he said as a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:39 AM

I was inclined to believe your interpreatation of the "crying wolf" in Kendall's post. McGrath. That is why I found the post so wickedly offensive. it is one thing not to believe in Saddam's massacres of the Kurds. That is just plain stupidity, perhaps influenced by political bias. To pretend not to believe in the massacre of the Kurds, just to make an anti-government point, is another thing all together. It is deeply insulting to the dead and their loved ones.
   Let me be perfectly clear. What Kendall wrote is as follows:
"I dont believe anything my goverment tells me. That includes all those stories about how Saddam murdered thousands of Kurds..."
If Kendall believes what is written there, it is a very stupid statement. If Kendall does not believe it, it is a grossly offensive statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 09:22 AM

I'd see it as a rhetorical trope - rather equivalent to saying "If Tony Blair told me the Earth was round, I'd start worrying about falling over the edge."

However an insensitive one, I accept, and one that would never come from anyone who had ever met Saddam's exiled victims.

I'm reminded of the way that many people in the Second World War were reluctanta to beieve stories about Nazi atrocities because of the lies about such things that had been told in the previous war.

Sadly it seems that there are people sometimes who put into practice the propaganda lies from previous generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:08 AM

The fact is Gentlemen that none of the aforesaid reasons for going to war were enough to let the former president turn loose and be unscathed by the loyal opposition. Every time he did it was wag the dog! It seems to me and to many people that some truths were ignored, some were exaggerated, and some were purely fabricated. Why would the prez. believe an intelligence agency that lead us to bomb a milk factory, the Chinese Embassy, etc. Where was the intelligence agency when the World Trade Center got bombed once and then again on 9/11. Where was the intelligence agency when the USS COLE was bombed. It seems to me that there are/were too many intelligence failures for the prez. to trust their information so blindly.

And I say again:

Why were the numbers of Kurds and Shi'ites massacred by Saddam not good enough to justify taking him out way back when?

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:27 PM

Mebbe so, Kendall, but then it depends on what your definition of "is" is. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 12:37 PM

DInna be snide, noo, DOugie!

Kendall didn't say he rejected the facts about past massacres. He said he didn't believe any stories about them heard from the U.S. Government; and in the context, we can add, "...in defense of their recent track record."

Anyone who knows Kendall knows he is far too smart to be half as dumb as the kind of stupidity that some people here are giving him far too much credit for.

I think that's right, anyway... :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM

To Cheif Chaos:

You mentioned 3 main points that haven't been proven. Let me respond:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction-   Everyone from Clinton to Kennedy to Kerry thought there were weapons of mass destruction.   Madelaine Albright repeated this yesterday in an interview.   To say that Bush lied about it is simply partisan.    It is also innacurate to say there were no weapons of mass destruction.   The Kay report stated we found Ricilin (a WMD) and long range missles equipped to carry WMD's (a violation of treaty) along with laboratories and plans.    What we have not found was a stockpile of WMD's.   Do any of you know where Bush got the numbers that Collen Powell reported?   Those were the numbers that Iraq reported to the UN it had. What happened to them?
2. No Imimnant threat-   The Kay report stated that Sadaam and his generals thought they had WMDs', and were trying their best to obtain them.   In addition Kay reported that despite no WMD's found, Iraq was more dangerour than he though previously as scientists were making deals with terrorist groups.   Maybe that doesn't worry you.   It worries the hell out of me- especially combined with that Pakistani sceintist selling nuclear weapons.
3.   No link to Al Queda-   We captured an Al Queda camp in Iraq, we captured many Al queda terrorists, and Mohammed Atta met with Iraq leaders.   If there is no connection than why did Al Queda bomb Spain for supporting the USA in Iraq?   (Also- why did they bomb Spain when the USA did this unilaterally?)

To Bobert-   you are the funniest guy on the web.   Incredibly hilarious.    When I first read your stuff I took you serious. But after a while I finally got it and realized what a comedic genious you are.    I laugh my head off at your responses.   Please keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 05:13 PM

Amos: you can read what Kendall said. Which words did you you have difficulty understanding? i try (reasonably successfully) not to get angry with what people say on Mudcat. this occasion was one I failed on, I will not have people trivialising what my friends(and their families) have suffered for cheap party political points many thousands of miles from where the blood was shed or the lungs were coughed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM

Testy, aren't we, T-Bird... Like, my list is a summation of fairly well documented stories that have appeared in mainstream media. Now I know how you like these long, drawn out academic exercises with footnotes on the footnotes but I don't think most people read "War and Peace" length posts...

Now, exactly which *story* that the Bush administration has used to justify invading Iraq, that I listed, is it that you find sunstantial disagreement. The operative word here is "sunstantial" since you just love to move the focal point of the real story to the missed comma buried deep in the middle of it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:39 PM

everyone has times of huge suffering - thats life. and people empathise with others suffering, unless they're sopciopaths or politicians. no one here is not caring about the suffering in in iraq, but maybe we're asking..

WHY..

kendall's comments were ironic. and made out of concern.

and whatever view we take here, we're all concerned.

fred

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:02 PM

Teribus ..I think its high time that you applied for Mr Campbells' vacant job in no ten Downing Street.
Iv noticed of late , a great deal of "Spin " appearing in your posts ,which used to be factual in the extreme.
Firstly it was stretching things considerably, to maintain that people who dont trust opinion polls, only feel like that if the poll dosnt come up with the result they would like. Personally I dont trust opinion polls at all, regardless of the result they claim, and I dont think you have the facts at your disposal to doubt my sincerity.
Regarding the poll,I dont think the BBC are going to engineer any poll ,but they are hardly going to set up their stall in the middle of Tikrit, are they? For security reasons im sure they would only poll in "safe areas" and that must have had a big effect on to objectivity of the poll.
Im sure the Shi'ites are reasonably happy with the direction things are going,but remember its among the Shia that Moslem fundamentalism flourishes, so these poll can give a false impression....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:05 PM

make that "substantial", T-Bird.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:30 PM

And don't forget the point I made - as well as the fall of Saddam, the past year has seen the end of sanctions. That means an end to something that caused enormous suffering, and that has to be included in the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM

AKE - You accuse the T Bird of spin ?

Personally I think you are yourself trying to spin this to fit your own prejudices.

What ever the rights or wrongs are, the facist fundementalists will claim this as a victory - And I fear that this will only gaurentee more terrorist attacks.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 07:48 PM

Gareth ...Im too old and tired to have prejuduces any more,I just observe things from the top of my mountain and thank Aton that Im not young again.
There's a story on the Scottish news to night of a young boy in Glasgow who was abducted and murdered by a group of " Asians", which of course is code for Moslems.
I just hope this is not the beginning of racial violence in Scotland ,
Dangerous Times indeed...Good to see you back on form ..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 08:52 PM

Funny -- I think of Asians as being nore liekly to be Hindi, or Buddhists, or Taoist than Muslims. My decoder ring must be out of fate...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 11:33 PM

Larry,

I didn't say in particular that Bush was lying about the WMDs.
I do believe that the administration played up the fear of them. I also think its interesting that they chose to believe the Clinton administration about them but pretty much dismissed everything else.
The reason I have no problem with that particular claim is that we gave them to him and trained him on how to use them. And warheads that can be used for that application is a bit different than stockpiles of WMDs. I have plenty of items throughout my house that could be used in such a manner.

Imminent threat to me means incoming in so many minutes. I am quite aware of the type of destruction that can be caused by plagues or other biologicals but so far there are more people dead from SARS and West Nile Virus than there has been from any of Saddam's stockpile (without counting the Kurds and others that he used the stuff on). The way it was postulated was that we should act before there was a mushroom cloud hanging over the US. I find this claim to be dubious and given that I am in the first response business the only difference in a terrorist attack and an accident is intent. We have had far more accidents than terrorist attacks and there is little money flowing into the responders pockets even though they will be needed to stabalize the situation and prevent its spread as well as rescuing and treating survivors and make no bones about it there is absolutely no way that invading Iraq could stop any of this type of attack.

Funny that we should find Al Quaida troops in Iraq, I mean it only borders on Afghanistan and its the easiest place to take potshots at US troops. There are also Saudis, Pakistanis, Palestinians and I would venture quite a few Iranians by now as well. Rumsfeld also met with Saddam Hussein, does that mean we support terror.

Al Quaida attacked Spain because Spain supported us in our invasion (one of the few nations that did) and has troops in Iraq. One of the major reasons for the al quaida movement was US troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They are also going to go after those who are not expecting to get hit. By the way the name Al Quaida essentially means "the base". It is not so much of an organization as it is a bunch of cells that believe in the same thing. These cells are spread worldwide. Its too bad we didn't find the camps and Al Quaida operatives in this country instead of Iraq, but according to insiders the administration was too busy planning an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11 and had dismissed warnings about Al Quaida. By the way, the terrorists who took the planes were almost all Saudis. ANd we all know that when Saudis are involved you need to invade Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 02:52 AM

There seems to be a lingering belief among some folks that there are, after all, "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. None have been found, for the simple reason that there are none there. Tell us all this, you Bush believers--had Saddam Hussein and his horrid hordes approached the capital of the USA with the obvious intention of taking it over, would "weapons of mass destruction" [REAL ones---]been absent from the scene for long? You know the answer to that one.
There is hypocrisy, and there is monumental hypocrisy; we need only one finger to point! I still fear the day when w.m.d.s may yet be "found" in Iraq. The squirming rhetoric of Tony Blair in particular makes me susp[ect that the Gang would stoop to ANYTHING to have theworld believe in their "cause". That Iraq will eventually be "better off" is a probability. After over ten years of imposed suffering [not only from Saddam!}that eventuality won't be hard to bring about. But anyone who belives that our happy band of bandits mean to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own form of governance in defiance of that which the said happy band intend them to have, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 03:35 AM

Amos: codes are different in different countries I guess. In a British newspaper "disaffeected Asian youth riot" or similar statements would be generally understood to mean Pakistani (or conceivably Bangladeshi) Muslims. "Asian" is mostly used in British papers(and indeed in government/bureaucratic documents) for Indian sub-continent. And Indians are not generally perceived as badly behaved, so the coupling of "Asian" and riot, kidnapping, drive-by shooting or any similar reference would be assumed by an average reader to mean Pakistani(whether correctly or not).

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 09:29 AM

Right on the ball Greg
Glasgow has a large Pakistani Moslem contingent. There has been friction for some years between the dispirited Scottish underclass and the upwardly mobile Pakistanis.
Hope the present situation dosnt bode ill for the future...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:02 AM

Are Iraquis better off now? Hmmm.

Let's take it on a one-by-one basis. We are awaiting phone calls from Iraquis who will tell us if they feel better off now than they did before the American invasion.

RING!!!

Hello? Yes, go ahead...

"Hello. I am Saddam, and I..."

What? You're Saddam? You mean you are Saddam Hussein?

"No. I am Saddam Karami. I am a fruit seller in Basra."

Oh. Well, Mr Karami, do you feel better off now as an Iraqui?

"Yes and no."

Can you explain that?

"I am glad the Sunnis are out of power. This means that soon we can establish a Shi'ite administration and kill or drive out all the Sunnis, Kurds, Americans, British and other scum from Iraq."

I see. So you feel better off now?

"Well, no. I also cannot get fruit to sell and I lost 3 family members in the bombing and fighting of the war, and 2 more afterward due to more bombings and fightings. This is the fault of the Americans, the Kurds, the British, and the Sunnis. I will not rest until they all pay in blood for what they have done. Death to America!"

That caller has hung up, ladies and gentlemen. I think we have 1 vote for "not better off", but I'm not sure. Let's move on.

Hello?

"Hello. I am Saddam."

I think we already spoke to you.

"No. You didn't. This is Saddam."

Saddam who?

"Saddam Hussein, you idiot! Why do you think?"

Oh my goodness! We have the real Saddam himself this time, ladies and gentlemen! Where are you calling from, Mr Hussein?

"From my damned cell. Where do you think? They have provided me with a cell phone, so I could call in on your program."

Well, this is tremendously exciting! We are speaking live to the deposed dictator of Iraq, the Butcher of Baghdad himself, Saddam Hussein!!! Mr Hussein, do you feel better off after the American takeover of Iraq?

"Yes and no."

Could you elaborate on that, Mr Hussein?

"Yes. I feel worse off because I am no longer in power. Power is a nice thing to be in. It permits one to make many powerful decisions and I always liked doing that. I miss not being in power."

Well, I suppose that's understandable, Mr Hussein. But how do you feel better off now in Iraq?

"It's obvious isn't it? I can get a shave and shower every day. I sleep well at night. I get three good meals a day. I am dressing in clean clothes. I need not fear assassination attempts. I am relieved of the terrible burdens of command. My shoulders are not weighted down by the pressure of decision-making. I get to watch DVD's of 'Trailer Park Boys' which the Marines are happy to provide me with. If you think this doesn't beat cowering in a filthy hole in the ground day after day in fear of one's life, you must be crazy!"

Well. I see what you mean, Mr Hussein. Do you have anything else to say to our listeners?

"Yes. Go to hell, you overfed couch potatoes in America. You suck! I was someone important once, a celebrity, but you will NEVER be! Your are nobodies! I rate, you don't. Eat me!"

Hmmm. Mr Hussein seems to have hung up. Well, we'll just move on to the next caller, as we continue to find the answer to the question: "Are you better off now in Iraq?"

RING!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 02:09 PM

And who said the Canadians didnt understand irony?

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

..brillig

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:36 PM

Iraq, I mean it only borders on Afghanistan

Pedantic note: no it doesn't. Tran gets in the way. (It's really very eay indeed to check that kind of thing on the net, Chief...)

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM

Iraq, I mean it only borders on Afghanistan

Pedantic note: no it doesn't. Iran gets in the way. (It's really very eay indeed to check that kind of thing on the net, Chief...)

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:42 PM

Yes, it borders on Iran...one of the juiciest possible targets on America's provisional hit list. Afghanistan borders on the other side of Iran. If I was Iranian, I'd be quite nervous.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Strick
Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:51 PM

Naw, everybody knows that Syria is next. No, wait, it's Venezuela. OK, maybe Iran's next. But they don't seem to think so:

"'After Bush is done with Saddam, have him send American troops over here,' went the common refrain in Tehran.

"And in the aftermath of President Bush's "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, there was plenty of speculation that Washington just might.

"But a year after U.S. troops got mired down in Iraq, the mullahs have gone nowhere. On the contrary, they are fresh from a (questionable) election victory.

"Next door in Iraq, meanwhile, the American military is stretched too thin to contemplate taking on Tehran. And international support for another 'regime change' by Washington is nonexistent."

Iran, U.S. flirt with better ties

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 02:00 PM

Okay so I fail geography!

I have yet to hear from an official source that there is a definite connection between the events of 9/11, the defunct regime of Saddam Hussein, and Al Quaida. That there have been, are or were members of Al Quaida or any other of the numerous terrorist groups in Iraq since we invaded does not surprise me. In fact its one of the things that was predicted to happen by the people who were opposed to the war and a probable reaction to our Commander in Chief saying "Bring It On!"

We now find ourselves in the same position that we were in Viet Nam. Unable to tell the friendlies from the bad guys without a thought reading machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 04 - 02:15 PM

Does anyone who knows anything at all about it even claim now that there was any meiningful connection at all between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

My impression is that the people who were talking this up at one time have quietly dropped it and moved onto other things.

..........................

Talking about polls - I see that an ICM poll conducted recently
among British Muslims, showed 80 per cent opposed to the war on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 07:40 AM

Saddam was regarded as a secularist by fundamentalist muslims. There is no way he would have fostered Al Qaeda or they him.

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 08:46 AM

McG:

Apparently you're not listenin' much to Dick Cheney. He's still telling the same old lies every time I see him on TV. Apparently he's not reading his inter-office memos or he's be up on the *new and improved* lies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Most Iraquis better off
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 04 - 01:29 PM

But I specifically said "anyone who knows anything at all about". That leaves Cheney and Bush out of the picture, and was intended to.

Now if Tony Blair were to say it, it might be different, because he does know better. It would be a straightforward lie, and he's got a lawyer's cunning about avoiding those, most of the time. So you won't find him actually saying it these days.