So the answer to my question is Yes, you do believe this, and as “evidence”, you cite a half-Iraqi guy living in Singapore’s obviously hyperbolic and unfounded opinion. This guy might like to inform me that this is true, but I don’t see what evidence (besides his genetics) he has to support this position.
That’s some silly evidence, December. Check out the Hint thread for, well, a hint.
Daniel
I’ve been following Collounsbury’s most interesting thread. He wrote
But, why isn’t LAITH MUHMOOD AL ADELY as valid a source as Collounsbury? Neither of them is in Iraq, but al Adely is half Iraqi.
Given that Collounsbury is there, whereas your cite is in Singapore; given that your cite makes a patently false claim (that 9 in 10 Iraqis are pro-war, and the remaining 1 in 10 Iraqis are related to the gubmint) – no, Laith isn’t as valid a source.
You’ll note, too, that Laith gives no evidence whatsoever for the claim that 9 in 10 Iraqis are pro-war: that figure looks remarkably like it was pulled out of Laith’s butt.
Daniel
As something of a counter-cite, check out This New York Times article. It doesn’t address public opinion in Iraq so much as opinion in the Arab world as a whole, including such scary observations as:
Daniel
Yes, I can well believe that a majority of the non-Iraqi Arab world opposes the US-led invasion. They don’t have to live under Saddam. If the US wins and improves the lives of the Iraqi people, I hope that opinion will change.
I also agree that the 9 out of 10 figure was pulled out of Laith’s butt. In fact, every statement of Iraqi opinion is pulled out of someone’s butt. There’s no way to get honest answers from Iraqis, who know they could be tortured or murdered by Saddam’s government for saying the wrong thing.
OK, a couple of things. First, I want to know if you are taking the position that this is, indeed, why we are there. This is a simple yes/no question.
To respond to your question, I can not state that I know that this is not the reason, but I can stated that, based on all of the evidence that I have been able to find it is reasonable to assume that this is not why we are there. As other and I posters have pointed out, there are a host of humanitarian problems on the planet as deserving of our attention that we seem to be cheerfully ignoring.
Look, we have been given this shifting mosaic of rationalizations for why we are in Iraq, as one reason dries up another is offered. At very best, we either have an administration with a hidden agenda or one that disrespects our intelligence.
Okey dokey – so we now know that you consider this cite to be unreliable (inasmuch as you admitted it was pulled out of the author’s butt). That means that the first part of this post is meaningless and unfounded; given that, I don’t think it’s necessary to respond to the second part of this post.
Glad we could clear that up!
Daniel
I actually wrote that this cite is no less reliable than any other cite.
Aside from misstating what I wrote, your excuse doesn’t even make sense. Since you support anti-war activities, you must think they benefit someone. So, Daniel, just who do you think you are helping?
If you can’t present any evidence for your case then what are you doing? Am I just supposed to believe you because you say so?
All you’re doing is saying “You’re wrong”. Well woopteedoo, how convincing.
Need I tell you about the Invisible Pink Unicorns? They’re pretty obvious, the fact that you would deny their existence or demand proof is beyond me. :rolleyes:
What you wrote was, “I also agree that the 9 out of 10 figure was pulled out of Laith’s butt.” If you think that buttogenetic cites are reliable, my apologies; otherwise, I didn’t misstate what you said. For this point, whether other cites are reliable is irrelevant: all that matters is that your claim, that “the Iraqis don’t want [my] ‘help’,” is unfounded.
If you honestly need an answer to your second sentence, and if you’ve not got it from everything I’ve said here and elsewhere, I can reiterate for you. Whom do I think protesting the war helps?
-American civilians, who are less likely to be attacked by terrorists if the man on the Arabic street realizes that we don’t all support our deceitful imperialistic government.
-American Soldiers, who are less likely to be put in harm’s way in the next war if there’s a groundswelling of popular opposition to this war.
-Iraqi civilians, who are less likely to find themselves as collateral damage if folks keep a strong pressure on the military to minimize such deaths.
-People in countries like Iran, who might not be invaded next time if opposition to this war is strong enough.
-People around the world, who will benefit from the US working within, instead of in defiance to, international bodies and agreements.
-All sorts of people who will benefit from Bush’s leaving office in 2004.
Daniel
Hmmm… I don’t think it was activists, liberals, and leftists who put “SH” in power and declared him our “friend” while he was doing the same stuff he’s doing now (torture, killings, etc.). As has been stated before, it’s not that establishing a democracy and building infrastructure are a bad idea (no, they’re a good idea!) – it’s just that those are most probably NOT the goals of the present administration and the “commander in chief” of this military operation.
Think about it: due to leaks (Ashcroft was keeping it a secret), this administration is planning on proposing legislation which would allow it to arbitrarily strip Americans of their citizenship – with no recourse for redress or grievance. Habeas corpus is dying. The “president” came to power through blacks being denied the vote in Florida. Where does anyone get the idea that this “president” and this administration likes democracy? Or has anything against torture? I am against torture, but the people in charge of this attack are not (at least, they’re not against it on foreign soil – they’re still a notch above the rest). Wake up.
Most probably, if the attack is successful, SH will be removed and another member of his party will be allowed to replace him – will that stop the torture and killings that this administration never cared about in the first place? No, it will not. The Iraqi people are right back where they started. Let’s say it’s decided to take out SH’s party or “regime” – who replaces it? Well, given that we’ll probably just up and leave once the fireworks are over and let people fight it out, probably some warlord or fundamentalist – will this stop torture and killings and increase freedom and openness? Or maybe we’ll decide to stay by backing a “democratic” party that’s really just a front for the CIA – and as we all know, the CIA just hates leaders that torture. That’s what made the CIA oppose Pinochet – NOT. So, again, continued torture, political killings, etc. etc. It’s not that saving Iraq is a bad idea – it’s that the Bush administration is not the one to do it – unless you’ve been absent for the last two years. If, somehow, an open society suddenly appears in Iraq, I’ll be overjoyed. But I’m not holding my breath.
And in the meantime, we’re dropping bombs all over and convincing lots of young men across the world that we are an arrogant country that doesn’t care about listening to its international partners and doesn’t care about killing other people when we want more control. Now how exactly does that stop terrorism? It doesn’t.
In the end, this war is not about stopping terrorism and is not about creating democracy or saving people from torture. It would be nice if it were, but to believe that means to have not been paying attention to who it is who is running this show. Just because Bush says it’s so doesn’t mean it’s so. It’s a very simply idea, really – it’s called lying.
Welcome to the board, **voltaire2b **. Here in Great Debates, the tradition is to provide evidence for one’s statements. You made a set of what I would consider wild allegations. I invite you to support them with cites.
Yes, I believe it is one of the reasons we are there.
This is just idiotic. You are apparently unfamiliar with the phrase “for the sake of argument”. It is imminently logical to advance seperate arguments in the following manner:
A is true.
Even if A were not true, B would render A immaterial.
If you consider such reasoning to be “twisted”, then you understand nothing about logic.
Oops, that should have been “eminently”, not “imminently”.:smack:
Does he have to give factual cites, or can he quote editorials the way you do? :rolleyes:
In any event, it seems to me most of voltaire2b’s points are already well-established facts – Reagan’s support of Saddam Hussein in the 80s, the 2000 Presidential Election fiasco, the Patriot Act II, the United States sending captured al Qaeda suspects to Pakistan for “interrogation,” etc. etc. He’s got some speculative points near the end, but they’re clearly marked as speculation, so cites wouldn’t be needed for those.
Or maybe you’re just annoyed that he nailed you to the wall? 
Welcome, voltaire. One thing you’ll learn real quick: taking advice on how to provide cites from december is like taking advice on how to work with other nations from Dubya. Don’t sweat his criticism.
Daniel
You are confused. Very confused. I’ll try it slowly, using your preferred A and B.
A is idiotic, or “twisted”. At the same time, “even if A were not true, B would render A immaterial”. So one might wonder what motivation someone would have to argue such an idiotic position as A, instead of relying on B. The answer, I am suggesting, is that B is politically unpalatable. Therefore it’s proponents are comfortable arguing on its behalf when it is being used “for the sake of argument”, but are not comfortable using it as the actual basis for their position. Which motivates them to buy into the rediculous contortions of A.
Hope that helps.
Somebody several posts ago said
I’m sure you have read by now – it’s all over the news this morning – that in some cases there are one or two additional reasons:
Oh, and one other thing. While the police are occupied arresting protesters who block traffic and (sometimes) throw rocks, what else are they NOT doing? They are certainly not watching out for somebody on the subway with, say, a little container of something you and I don’t really want to breathe in. Or checking what’s really in the back of that beat-up panel truck. Or even looking for the really dangerous people. These protesters are using up resources we need elsewhere.