are the iraqis ready?

[Compugasm]

No doubt, however I'd rather see the poll sample data and methodology myself, and not have the results interpreted by a journalist from missing data.

[bishop]

seeing how this particular poll wasn't officially released, it's understandable that they wouldn't have disclosed their methodology. i'm sure it will come out eventually though. the quoted statement seems pretty revealing if you ask me:

"If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it (the poll) is pretty grim," said Donald Hamilton, a career foreign service officer who is working for Ambassador Paul Bremer's interim government and helps oversee the CPA's polling. But he added in a telephone interview yesterday from Baghdad that "the truth of the matter is they have a strong inclination toward the things that have the potential to bring democracy here."

there's your half empty vs. half full..

there have been several polls prior to this one (whose methodology was provided to the public) that have shown a trend of increasingly unfavorable views towards the occupation. so, it's not so very hard to assume that that trend would continue (especially after abu-ghraib).

the iraqis seem to think that things would be better if we just left. i agree with them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Iraq will develop into a diplomatic nation of its own accord, if ever, when it is ready, and not before. I don't see it happening while the lines on the map stay the same.

[Ralph38449]

Alright Bishop I must ask you (after a while you may want to have me banned from your threads because will learn to hate me I'm sure) just how much of this do you believe? Iraq is big ita has alot of people one incident a day in the same general area doesn't sound that bad.

Yet welcome to the world of media hype. The media has the power to blow something completely out of spectrum. Look at the Iraq prison scandal, one place a few people yet the world cann't look away and claims that everyone in the occupation has orders to do that if they must.

Now the original topic no. Noone is ever ready for such a drastic change yet it might work, although look at all the places we set up and supported, like South Korea, not a good track record.

[bishop]

sorry, every time i see americans getting blown up in iraq, i also see mini-parades of iraqis protesting against our presence. and as i pointed out, scientific polls have been conducted in iraq - by gallup and others. gallup is as legit as polls get, and they always show their methodology. the trend of increasing disapproval is as clear as day.

media hype.. the alternative would be to censor all information from the public and show a perfectly rosy picture instead. without an independent media, we wouldn't know that bush's claims about wmd were bogus. we wouldn't know that the claimed links between saddam and al qaeda were bogus. we wouldn't know about great american behavior at abu ghraib (using interrogation/torture tactics first employed at gitmo and afghanistan).

yes, it all comes down to media hype. none of what they say is true at all.


i've given bush the benefit of the doubt on a wide variety of issues. he's broken that trust time and time again.

[Ralph38449]

That's your conclusion, so it is taken, so it is respected.

Did you watch tonights news, did you see the Iraqies who were affected in the bombing, they are the victims too, and this isn't even their fault. I've come to the conclusion that pulling out may not be such a bad thing, the Iraqies would more often be the victim so they would deal with it.

Worst case senerio is that terrorists would establish a base their but then we just reinvade. I guess.

This is just a mess.

[bishop]

yup, i saw the news... the iraqis seem to be inviting martial law, hoping that it will protect them. bremer also said that the iraqis aren't ready.

i have always been a fan of the sane, moderate, average iraqi. what sort of person is against the regular joe? in my eyes, our presence there, at least in its current nature, isn't doing any of them any good. the terrorists/insurgents are using our presence as the primary reason to continue their aggression. the situation will never be solved until the iraqis can control their own interior.

i don't think you have to worry about us completely leaving iraq. we are building some 14 bases after all...


i also think this is a mess. reflective of the administration's piss poor post-war planning (too many p's, sorry) - and their anti-diplomatic style where we piss off those who would/could help us.

how this war made us safer is beyond me.

[Ralph38449]

The war made us safer by not allowing them to attack our civilians, instead they attack our troops.

The iraqies may never be ready.

If the good guy is the average iraqi then maby they are ready.

[bishop]

iraq posed a threat, but certaintly no imminent threat. he didn't have the capability to launch any sort of strike on our country.

Which is more reason why if that is true, Saddam should have worked with the UN inspectors without the hubbub and floundering around. I still believe they did pose a threat, they had WMD and he stalled for that reason, to get them out of Iraq and into Syria.

[Osborn F Enready]

Truth, WHY on earth would a DICTATOR(Saddam), bow to the whims of his ENEMY(The U.N.,U.S.,England) and comply with what his ENEMY said was a necessity, if it violated his soverign status? Did Saddam ever sign on as an ally to the U.S.?
Do you think a leader of an ENEMY NATION, would do what ever was necessary to keep people out of his land, especially if he viewed them as evil?

We helped form the U.N., to usurp the League of Nations.

We are now rejecting the U.N.'s approach.

Was it not legal in Saddams mind, if he viewed the U.N./U.S. as a conspiracy against his nation, to do everything within his power to play along, and yet defy these powers when it suited him?

Did Saddam view any body other than his own (as Dictator) having authority over his nation?

Was it more wrong for Saddam to sell weapons to people who wished to purchase (regardless of reason) any more than it was wrong for Russia to sell off its stock of weapons to every facet of the Middle East, China, Korea, Cuba?

Just because the U.S. says, does not make it TRUE, or RIGHT.

Lets analyze this a little more please, you are really assuming to much as general knowledge, and it is really just YOUR opinion.

[bishop]

we were constantly telling the u.n. how we knew were all the wmd were hidden. the u.n. would go, "really, tell us where.".. so, we'd tell them where, they'd go and wouldn't find anything, not a trace. time and time again..

surely we weren't leading them around on a wild goose hunt. i mean, when we claied to know where the wmd were, we were telling the truth right? (funny that we supposedly knew where they were, but never bothered to catch saddam red handed) leading the inspectors around in hopes that their failure to find anything could be characterized as a failure.

and then the syria argument... another convenient argument - one that cannot be substantiated by the facts.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Truth, Which is more reason why if that is true, Saddam should have worked with the UN inspectors without the hubbub and floundering around. I still believe they did pose a threat, they had WMD and he stalled for that reason, to get them out of Iraq and into Syria.

I have my doubts about any quantity of WMD, but I still maintain it was not an excuse to invade. First of all, he didn't have a delivery system. Although he may have had the ability to use CBW on Israel, I doubt if he would have used them against Israel OT the U.S.. First of all, scumbag though he was, he could not have kept an iron fist rule in a whole country for 30 years if he was an idiot. He had to know we would have likely nuked him into powder if he attacked the U.S.. If the target was Israel, I don't think WE would have nuked Iraq, but we sure wouldn't have stopped THEM.

I DO wonder, though, why he didn't play ball with us, as you suggested. OTOH, he may have tried, but we weren't playing. There has to be more than meets the eye here, as we all remember April Glaspie and her nin-intervention pledge, which we broke almost immediately to "defend" a nasty, lying little monarchy.

He may have? Are you saying he did try to work with us or are you lamenting wishful thoughts? If you can say there is more than meets the eye here, then you should be just as willing pose the same benefit of the doubt for Bush.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Truth, He may have? Are you saying he did try to work with us or are you lamenting wishful thoughts? If you can say there is more than meets the eye here, then you should be just as willing pose the same benefit of the doubt for Bush.

I am not saying he DID try to work with us, but he MAY have. This also means he may have NOT. What part of MAY don't you understand? And explain exactly what you mean by wistful thoughts! Are you saying I WISH he worked with us or what?

Since you didn't respond to the other part of the post, I'll ask your opinion as to what you think about April Glaspie's promise of non-intervention when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

BTW, I give the benefit of the doubt to Bush when it is due. I base my opinions on the facts at hand, and when I don't have the facts I use the words MAY and POSSIBLY, etc. as it assumes the opposite as well. Explain how the benefit of the doubt figures into what I posted.