quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Are things going better today, then they were a couple of years ago?

You'd be taken more seriously if you asked if things were better than 2001.

And the answer to that question is no. Just ask the average Iraqi.

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it.

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

If the Iraqi People didn't want Hussein in power, they could have removed him at any time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

... it won't make the situation any better for the Iraqi people, their hundreds of thousands of refugees, one hundred thousand civilian deaths - a conservative estimate - , and nor will it improve the situation for the four thousand dead American soldiers or the ones that are irreparably maimed and damaged by the 'confict'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

... ask the families of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis if things are going better today.

Because you can't ask the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis, can you?

... You know, based on the thousands and thousands and thousands dead, and the millions displaced from their homes and nation, I think I can answer that things suck much more now than they did under Hussein's rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

OK Firm... things in my opinion are better then 2 years ago... but are they better for the Iraqi people then 7 years ago. And should people change their stand or reasons for their opposition to the war just because only a few die every day rather then hundreds.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Good point... and you can't ask all the people that Hussein killed anything either....oh wait, don't we have your word that none of that ever happened?

hehe. Excellent point.

And another is ... what price freedom?

Firm

YOU cannot free *anyone* until YOU have enslaved them. If they're chattel, then you have to steal them from their owner FIRST before you can transfer title to themselves.

If the Iraqi People didn't want Hussein in power, they could have removed him at any time.

quote:

I don't see "Free Iraq" in the Constitution or Amendments, so it isn't the US Treasury's or Military's price to pay, is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

OK Firm... things in my opinion are better then 2 years ago... but are they better for the Iraqi people then 7 years ago. And should people change their stand or reasons for their opposition to the war just because only a few die every day rather then hundreds.

Butch

kd,

Thank you for your straight forward answer, and question.  I've given a cite in my last post about what the people of Iraq seem to think about how things are, compared to 7 years ago.

As far as trying to make people change their stance on whether the war was correct in the first place ... I'm not trying to do that.  Actually, I'm more interested in whether or not they have the ability to reason, and see past "should've beens" and "might've beens" to "what can be".

Most are failing the test of reality, unfortunately.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

OK Firm... things in my opinion are better then 2 years ago... but are they better for the Iraqi people then 7 years ago. And should people change their stand or reasons for their opposition to the war just because only a few die every day rather then hundreds.

Butch

kd,

Thank you for your straight forward answer, and question.  I've given a cite in my last post about what the people of Iraq seem to think about how things are, compared to 7 years ago.

As far as trying to make people change their stance on whether the war was correct in the first place ... I'm not trying to do that.  Actually, I'm more interested in whether or not they have the ability to reason, and see past "should've beens" and "might've beens" to "what can be".

Most are failing the test of reality, unfortunately.

Firm

Firm I really do hope that link reflects the feelings of all Iraqis... it was a very small sample to be conclusive.

I understand your posts... I'm not sure… but I don't think you are blindly following the Bush reasoning for the war...at least I hope not.

Myself, none of this changes my feelings about the war and our justifications for invading. Even if we win... the people are grateful...and we get lots of oil... I still think we were wrong on a very basic level.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Are things going better today, then they were a couple of years ago?

You'd be taken more seriously if you asked if things were better than 2001.

And the answer to that question is no. Just ask the average Iraqi.

Ok.

Poll: Iraqis out of patience
Posted 4/28/2004 3:32 PM     Updated 4/30/2004 6:54 AM
By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it.

And, more recently ...

Iraqis: life is getting better
From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007
Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

And, of course, both of these polls were prior to the current "good news".

Next?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Just as you discount everything I see as realistic, I discount pretty much anything you have to say, because I see you totally wrapped up in an ideology of anti-Americanism, hatred of the free-market system, and a definition of "freedom" that includes slavery of the soul.

You're mind is as closed as anyone I've ever seen.

But feel free to continue to post.

It's entertaining.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Just as you discount everything I see as realistic, I discount pretty much anything you have to say, because I see you totally wrapped up in an ideology of anti-Americanism, hatred of the free-market system, and a definition of "freedom" that includes slavery of the soul.

You're mind is as closed as anyone I've ever seen.

But feel free to continue to post.

It's entertaining.

Firm

If being anti-war is anti-American, I then join a lot of your fellow countrymen in being ant-American. I am also anti-British too in that case because being British I dislike like Britain's crimes more than I dislike America's, I'm just thankful that the shitheads that run Britain haven't got the power to commit the imperial crimes they used to, however, it doesn't stop them being America's lapdog in their imperialism.


America doesn't even adhere to free markets so don't start accusing people who see problems in the free marke as being ideologically opposed to the free markets. America protects its own markets when it can, along with bullying, threatening and stealing as well. I'm not saying other countries don't but you are the one who makes the pretence that America takes the moral high ground. It doesn't.

If you analyse the American ideolgy of freedom, what it is about is not freedom of the soul but freedom of the powerful to exploit and steal resources from the weak.

I'd get off your moral pedestal, its looking decidedly decrepit. It doesn't so much need a polish as a total reconditioning.

Oh and Firm, if America (and Britain for that matter) really did believe in freedom and fighting wars for freedom, they would intervene in Zimbabwe where the opposition won elections and have been denied power. It is known the majority of Zimbabweans would love the west to intervene and free them from the tyrant Mugabe but where is this American love of freedom and its willingness to fight for it?

You don't need to reply, we all know the reason, as the Zimbabweans have noted themselves, they have no resources the west wants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

I guess that explains the US interventions in Liberia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and for that matter... France in 1914.  I guess it also explains the US military's involvement in relief efforts for the tsunami a few years back, and the US military's offers of help to the Burmese cyclone victims.  Care to spell out the spoils of victory that have accrued to the US taxpayer from all of that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

And please explain for us, how this "stealing" of Iraqi oil works exactly.  Please -- spell it out.  I'd like to know how it is that oil is extracted from the ground in Iraq and then winds up in the hands of evil American corporations who then refine it into gasoline without having paid the Iraqis fair market price for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

I guess that explains the US interventions in Liberia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and for that matter... France in 1914.  I guess it also explains the US military's involvement in relief efforts for the tsunami a few years back, and the US military's offers of help to the Burmese cyclone victims.  Care to spell out the spoils of victory that have accrued to the US taxpayer from all of that?

Kosovo was a NATO intervention and because the US is de facto leader of NATO, Britain had to do some hard persuading to get Clinton on side. All NATO countries were involved, even the German Luftwaffe which was in action for the first time since WWII, it wasn't an American operation.

Grenada. It was not about freedom, it was an ideological intervention to impose US will against a communist regime. Even Thatcher bitterly berated her buddy Reagan for American bullying on this one and that is something for her to criticize America.

Panama. America was more interested in the canal than freedom. Deposing Noreiga was not the USA's first intervention in Panama over the canal. The US has a long history of bullying and intervening in Panama about the canal, start off with Roosevelt in 1904 and work your way to the present day.

Haiti. The reason for the intervention was to protect the Americasn Embassy. Again, it is worth looking at the USA's history towards Haiti to get the full picture of repeated US intervention which is one of the reasons for Haiti being a basket case in the first place.

Somalia, this one is debatable.

The Somalia intervention was most likely an ill-advised assertion of well-meaning liberal internationalism, though there may have been other factors prompting the American decision to intervene as well: perhaps as a rationalization for increased military spending despite the end of the Cold War; an effort to mollify the Islamic world for American overkill in the war against Iraq and the inaction against the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia; and possibly as a preemptive operation against possible Islamic extremists rising out of the chaos.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0121somalia.htm

WWI was not about freedom, it was about power. The USA entered the war when  it was all but over but they didn't ernter it on grounds of freedom but because they felt their sovereignty had been violated by the German sinking of the Lusitania.

WWII, which was about freedom, the US only entered when they were attacked not because they believed in freedom. By that time the Germans had shot their load and couldn't win in Europe. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

And please explain for us, how this "stealing" of Iraqi oil works exactly.  Please -- spell it out.  I'd like to know how it is that oil is extracted from the ground in Iraq and then winds up in the hands of evil American corporations who then refine it into gasoline without having paid the Iraqis fair market price for it.

Look at the privatisation bill that the US is trying to force the Iraqis to pass through their Parliament and look at the companies lined up for the contracts. Yeah, you guessed it, Bush's mates again. If you read the news or listen to the media you will know that many Iraqi Parliamentarians are seething at thew prospect of this bill being forced through.

The motives of the American political establishment are as venal and base as any other power. The American establishment just dress it up for the consumption of the ordinary American as fighting for freedom or civilized values and the rule of law but it ain't, even though many Americans seem more than happy to swallow that line.

quote:

Hell, just about everyone knows about the oil issue or should, Blair even stuttered and almost choked when he was asked a direct question about it and a further pertinent question punctured his waffle which showed him to be lying on behalf of Bush again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces.

Duh! Like Saddam wasn't accusin g his opposition of similar?  Do me a favour.

Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, its the only rational explanation.

(Yeah I know, Bush isn't rational so that argument doesn't wash but the people that are pulling his strings are.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

So your claim that the US only gets involved in conflicts to steal a weaker country's resources is false.  Thanks for agreeing with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces.

Duh! Like Saddam wasn't accusin g his opposition of similar?  Do me a favour.

Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, its the only rational explanation.

(Yeah I know, Bush isn't rational so that argument doesn't wash but the people that are pulling his strings are.)

Ahh yes... the US invaded Iraq so that oil would be cheap and plentiful

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

And exactly which election did Saddam only get 43% of the vote, so he mobilized his supporters with threats of US intervention to violently oust the winners?

Don't strain yourself sticking to facts, you seem to be having such a good time hatemongering with fiction.