you asked for it you got it
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index.html
now if you would only be so kind as to show the incident where Saddam provoked the United states since George W. Bush took office that started this war?
Hello administrator? Shouldn’t this be in Great Debates? Nobody is questioning the response to the question about GW Bush’s continued draft dodging.
Dear Lark:
Clearly you are from La-La Land.
“Saddam allowed inspectors back into his country but not unconditionally. He did not allow them to freely inspect sites (e.g. palaces), he did not allow them to have un-monitored interviews with scientists in neutral areas. Iraq is approximately the size of California, hiding weapons from inspectors is not hard; especially since it is believed that Saddam has mobile weapond labs.”
The point is that Saddam made concessions. He tried to appease us. The fact that he didn’t do it as extensively as we wanted does not make it a provocation. HE BACKED DOWN. Not as much as we demanded but HE BACKED DOWN. In other words, he gave into some of our demands and then we attacked him anyway. We attacked him He did not attack us. We attacked him. Therefore, we started the war. Not him. In order for him to have started a war he would have had to attacked us. That’s how it works. If you attack somebody else or present an immediate — and remember, it has to be an IMMEDIATE — threat then it can be said that you started a war. No amount of hair-splitting is going to alter that. Most of your argument is irrelevant.
Most of the world has not made it clear that they are against the war. There is a vocal anti-war presence, but, you should remember, there is also a strong coalition that backs the war. “Most of the world” is an overstatement.
“’Most of the world” is an overstatement,” eh? That would mean that a majority of people support the war. I don’t suppose you feel in any way bound to prove that, do you? Most polls show that an overwhelming number of Europeans are against it, including Eastern Europeans.
And, by the way, your claim that there is a strong coalition is laughable especially when you compare it to what we had in 1991 and what we were shooting for in the USN. There’s us, the UK and 2,000 Australians. Spain, Bulgaria and all those other puny non-actual participants, are no reasonable person’s idea of a “strong” coalition. It’s precisely this ridiculous kind of talk that makes people think we’re talking like jerks.
“Can I ask you what it really comes down to as being more important - the people or Iraq wanting to be liberated, or the French against it because of their financial dealings? If you ask me, the cheering crowds of Iraqis greeting our soldiers, tearing down remnants of the oppressive regime, praising GWB far outweighs the opinions of ‘most of the world’.”
Relevancy? Look Junior, of course, I’m happy for the Iraqi people. But that has nothing to do with the fact that 1) We started this war, 2) most of the administration’s justifications are BS and 3) this war will do nothing to make us safer.
“Nobody claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. I do not know where you are pulling that from.”
Exactly where have you been? President Bush has repeatedly stated, “we must attack Iraq to prevent future 9/11s.” Thanks to this mendacity, 41% of Americans think Saddam was behind the attacks.
As far as Saddam handing over WMDs to terrorists, why would a meglamaniacal creep like Saddam hand over all the power implicit in his WMDs over to a bunch of guys he has no control over and who can only get him into trouble? If we’re going to attack Saddam over something we know he had no connection with then he knows we’ll definitely attack him on mere suspicion. Your unproven scenario is exaclty that.
Just wondering. At what point did conservatives start to actually care about freedom, democracy, or human rights, except as words used cynically in electioneering, or as obfuscation for the misdeeds of scoundrels?
You know, just curious.
(Speaking of bringing freedom and democracy to a “liberated” country, bang up job in Afghanistan there. I bet lots of countries are dying to be liberated after seeing that. Who will be the next ones to die, I wonder – Syria maybe, or Iran?)
The survey being quoted in your article did not ask the question “Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?”, but rather: “To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?”
The results of the survey do show that the majority of Americans surveyed are uninformed or do not pay close enough attention to news coverage. It has NOTHING to do with Saddam Hussein. For you to therefore say that half the American public thinks that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks is baseless. The survey did not mention the name “Saddam Hussein” to those surveyed.
If I, as an individual American, were to commit an atrocity, does that mean that GWB and the rest of the American public is behind it? No!
In regard to you asking me to show the incidend where Saddam provoked the US, I merely point to my previous posts; primarily, not abiding to the terms of the cease fire agreement of the original Gulf War, acquiring weapons of mass destruction and flaunting numerous UN resolutions. This is not to mention the oppression of his own people - something which will always provoke the US as a freedom-loving nation.
True, but there are surveys which have said that i dont have the link for any of them at my command. It’s logical to assume that if Iraqi’s were piloting those planes on 9/11 everyone would assume Saddam was invlolved. I figured that would do since it proved my point just as well, a majority opinon means nothing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by thelark *
**
once again you avoid the argument. No one has said Saddam has never provoked America but he has not done so in this millenium. In the year 2000 the situation was stable, now were at war, either Saddam or GW has done something to change that. Please provide evidence that Saddam has provoked the united states in the last few years, not in 1998 not in 1991.
“The survey being quoted in your article did not ask the question ‘Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?’, but rather: ‘To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?’”
OK Junior, but since Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship and since we were being told that “we must attack Iraq to prevent future September 11ths” because Saddam is supposedly behind terrorism doncha think you’re splitting hairs, hm?
…“This is not to mention the oppression of his own people - something which will always provoke the US as a freedom-loving nation.”
Sanctimonious, isn’t he?
About this celebration all over Iraq. I don’t understand why no one has mentioned that these people have been trained (read terrorized) into cheering whoever is in power for well over 20 years.
The Iraqis may be happy to see Sadam gone and US troops in, then again they may not. The fact is, cheering crowds in a country where cheering the leader has been pretty darned close to mandatory (Remember, Hussein was re-elected with 100% of the vote? ) tell us essentially nothing about how the people feel one way or another. I imagine they’re pretty much like us - different people have different opinions.
**
He made concessions?? He backed down? NO! There is a cease-fire agreement, there are UN resolution that he agreed to. He did not back down, he did not submit to these agreements. He made the rest of the world concede to him!
Europeans are pacifist after the decimation of their homeland by 2 World Wars. Why does Europe matter anyway? Iraq is a threat to the US, to Israel and to the rest of the Gulf region. Europe is primarily against the war due to financial reasons.
Yes, the visible coalition is smaller than it was in the original Gulf War, however there is support and that is a fact. Who, what, where, when is irrelevant.
Yes, to prevent a future 9/11. That is not saying “Saddam Hussein caused 9/11”, rather that Saddam Hussein and his regime harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. Please provide the source that 41% of Americans think Saddam was behind the attacks - the last person to argue that said over 50%, I’m glad to see that the percentage is dropping even as we debate. 
He would hand them over because he would want to inflict harm upon either the US or Israel. He would end up a martyr in the eyes of fanatics and would hence have achieved a certain immortality - certainly something to be desired by a “meglamaniacal creep”.
It’s fun to be in La-La Land. 
Have you read any of the statements by former “Human Shields” ? They admit that the Iraqis are happy to see americans, and that was before the fall. Try this link:
http://www.dadi.org/naivfool.htm
The reason the muslim/arab world hates the U.S. is primarily due to our support of Israel. Saddam fans the flames of that conflict by supporting suicide/homicide bombers, offering money to the families of these zealots. By encouraging that conflict, he is destabilizing the region and inciting more zealots to do terrorist acts on the United States. He allows (encourages maybe?) terrorist training camps in his country. Have any of the terrorist attacks in Somalia, the thwarted millenium bombing of L.A. airport, the first bombing of the world trade center, USS Cole, 9/11, etc. been trained in these terrorist camps? Probably. How many potential terrorist acts has the FBI/CIA stopped that were funded/trained in Iraq? I don’t know the answers to those last two questions, and unfortunately we probably will never know. But the fact that he has terrorist training camps in his country is just another reason why he is a threat to the United States.
Good Op-ed in the NY Times from CNN’s chief news executive:
Originally posted by braintree
As far as Saddam handing over WMDs to terrorists, why would a meglamaniacal creep like Saddam hand over all the power implicit in his WMDs over to a bunch of guys he has no control over and who can only get him into trouble? If we’re going to attack Saddam over something we know he had no connection with then he knows we’ll definitely attack him on mere suspicion. Your unproven scenario is exaclty that.
Well he’s already (or was…) sending money to their families. isnt that a fact?
I think I’ll try asking the next carful of jubilant iraqis driving around town waving pre-saddam iraqi flags, honking and screaming if they are being manipulated into cheering…
Is anyone else sick of people claiming their constitutional right to freedom of speech is violated when there is an overwhelming response from the PUBLIC (Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofalo, Cecil perhaps, etc.) against someone’s views? It’s not a constitutional issue! The GOVERNMENT has not restricted their right to free speech. In fact, that they are even able to make these statements, often on national television, is evidence in and of itself that their constitutional rights are not violated. There is no right to not have everyone pissed at you when you make a statement that they disagree with.
It’s the same thing you see with arguments regarding affirmative action. (And by the way, my points are not indicative of which side I am on regarding either the war or affirmative action issues). Defendants of affirmative action respond to the issue of there being a constitutional bar on racial discrimination by pointing to bias based legacy and athletic status in admissions for higher education. They are not comparable at all. While it is certainly a meritorious argument to say that legacy and sports should not be part of the admissions equation as a matter of debate about how things should be, it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL argument. Race is a protected class under the Constitution. Non-legacy and Non-athletic status are not protected classes.
People throw around concepts and rights from the Constitution with NO idea about what it pertains to. Maybe its part of the sound bite culture. People just hear a phrase like “freedom speech” and think it applies to anything they want.
Obviously I disgressed tremendously from the original post, but MLS’s post made me think of this stuff. By the way, MLS does not appear to be making any of the arguments that I am objecting to.
It often amazes me that both liberals and conservatives become so rabid about their own little issues that they turn off their brain. Such is the case with several of the posters I’ve read on this thread.
Just some of my thoughts on some of the comments. I’ve been rolling my eyes a lot to this thread:
thelark made a comment earlier on the fact that the world opinion isn’t as solidly against us as it appears (I’m not going to quote directly…its in there). :dubious: I think on this subject the facts are pretty clear, and the facts are the world DOESN’T support us at all in what we’ve done. I would like to take a moment to point out that, the world (mostly the same Europeans being polled) ALSO overwhelmingly supported appeasement of Hitler. To my mind, what the worlds citizens (or Europes or Americans) citizens poll as wanting or not wanting is not a very valid moral stance.
braintree: I’m not sure exactly who is from la la land here. Sadam made concessions, after he was forced too. But his concessions were always hesitant, half hearted. Why shouldn’t they have been…like Hitler, he had gotten away for years with his little stunts because the UN lacked/lackes the will to enforce its own resolutions. At the same time, lets not forget that he was constantly pushing things…firing missiles at US and British planes (prior to the war I mean) who where patroling the no fly zone, etc. If firing a missile isn’t a provocative or hostile act, what is? But we let it slide for years (Clinton occationally ordered the military to toss a rocket or two back at them…thats about it). He probably rightly felt that he’d never be called on it, and that eventually we would get tired of constantly beating our collective heads against the wall and give up. Hell, it worked for Hitler after all. If there wouldn’t of been a 911, he would probably have been right too. I seriously doubt whether any of these events would of happened but for that.
As to our right to MAKE him do what we wanted him to do…well, if you perpetrate a war of agression against another country for no better reason than that you want their oil, take over said country and then anex it (I don’t remember Saddam requesting UN approval…I’m not sure what the European polls showed either, though I remember polls during the gulf war showing a certain lack of approval then as well)…and then lose the war, I guess you are kind of at the mercy of those that won. Especially if you agree in your surrender to things like weapons inspections (unlimited btw), no fly zones, and the like. My thoughts on this are, if I have a knife, and someone else has a gun, its best not to piss them off…especially if I did that already once before. Pushing them twice seems like a singulary good way to get myself killed.
TheMemeWarrior: THIS is the poll you come up with to prove your case that the American people are being duped by the Bush administration into robot zombies (or whatever)??? :wally And its cited as gospel by Braintree as well (‘Thanks to this mendacity, 41% of Americans think Saddam was behind the attacks.’).
To quote the opening paragraph:
A national state of confusion
The Bush propaganda machine has convinced Americans that Saddam and the no-longer-mentioned Osama are the same person – and the polls prove it.
Sounds fair and unbiased to me. lol. Also, they pretty clearly state “In mid-January, an underreported political opinion poll provided a troubling account of the effectiveness of the Bush war machine’s propaganda arm”…so, where is this poll? Its unreported (probably surpressed by these Republican Nazi’s in the white house). Who was polled? Maybe they asked a group of Democrats from Florida about it…hell, maybe they used an automatic polling machine and the folks in Florida REALLY meant that Donald Duck was the real villian behind 911. Give me a break guys. While I wouldnt be surprised if some of my fellow citizens out there are that clueless, you aren’t exactly making a good case by siting some off the wall, obviously totally biased, and also unreported poll.
Bukk: You are just an idiot. When you can de-humanize the ‘other side’, you are on the road to committing attrocities. Maybe you meant it as a joke, but it strikes me as “All blacks criminals” “All Mexicans are lazy thieves” “The Jews are behind everything…LETS KILL EM ALL”, etc etc. We are ALL citizens of the US (well, those of us that ARE citizens I suppose :D).
I guess my point in all this rant is that you people (conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans) all want to make everything seem like its black and white on your pet issue. The reality is things are grey. This war is a perfect example. Nothing about it is black and white. Saddam, while he reminds me of a baby pocket Hitler in may respects, isn’t the incarnation of evil. He’s just a stupid, greedy and ruthless pocket tyrant of a small country in the Middle East. America’s reasons for going to war with them are grey as well…some are noble, some are base. Europes reasons for mostly opposing the war are the same…more base than noble IMHO, but that just an opinion. The Middle Easts reasons…the same, though maybe more noble (and stupid, ethnocentric and xenophobic) than base in their case.
I’ll stop at this point…sorry about the length of the rant. Let the flames commence I guess. My first post on this board (though I’ve been a reader for years) and I probably pissed off folks on both sides. 
-XT
Does anybody else think the last line was not 100% serious? That is, perhaps, and just perhaps, it was a … what is it called…oh yeah, a joke.
Does this thread have anything to do with Cecil anymore? Just in case it does, here goes:
You’re apparently new to Cecil, so it’s understandable that you may not know what he’s like. Yes, it’s possible for him to state an opinion that you don’t agree with. It’s also conceivable that he be misinformed about something. But the thought that he was duped by anyone, even the media, is absurd. Rest assured that whatever his position on this war or anything is, he wasn’t tricked into it.
Well, xtisme, you didn’t answer my question, but you did call me a mean name. I feel so sad now.
But back to my question, when did conservatives start caring about freedom, democracy, and human rights?
When?
I keep waiting for the evidence, and all I see are bombs making dead people, enriched corporations with deep ties to the RNC feeding on the bones of invasion, alleged Americans tellings other Americans they’re traitors for exercising their First Amendment rights, and a selective indifference on the part of conservatives to the plights of millions around the world.
In regard to the liberals out there…Why can’t they get over the fact the W is, in fact, our president? If they hate him so much, then why not voice their opinion in the next election? All this feces about the war in Iraq being foolish or wrong or whatever only serves to denegrate and demoralize our troops. Get this straight; You cannot support our troops without supporting what they do as soldiers. Don’t let hatred for W become hatred of our armed forces. They need our support!