[ohio]

first off, polls mean scheit; they're anecdotal at their level best.
.

Not that I want anything to do with this thread, but I have to address that statement.

Polls are by definition NOT anecdotal. That's the point of a poll: to provide non-anecdotal information.

Conversely, an anecdote is the opposite of a statistical survey. It is a single data point, and can therefore be used to find the extremes/outliers of a trend, but is of no use to capture the trend itself. That's a poll's (multiple data points) job.

 

[$tinkle]

you know what you are...you're my poolside herpes flare-up, & i'm out of valtrex

 

[Changleen]

changleen, this is easy pickins; harken back to when you were blabbing on about how we are causing the insurgency by breaking up the iraqi military (before we re-built it),

Not quite, but it'll do for the purposes of this argument

the borders are wide open & unprotected, & terrorists are pouring into iraq.

Pouring? I think not. In fact most reports one reads seem to imply the role of foreign fighters has been vastly overplayed by the US. If you read a few of those blogs I pointed you at the other day maybe you'd realise this. And once again, you automatically jump to the conclusion that anyone who comes to Iraq must be a 'terrorist'. All I'm trying to point out here is that there is a huge difference between a genuine terrorist and a person who wishes to fight the AMerican occupation. If there isn't, then by definition America itself is persuing a 'terrorist' policy. Is America persuing a terroristic policy by being in Iraq? After all, you've killed thousands of innocent civiliians with no warning, you've destroyed thousands of peoples homes and businesses... Why can't you get over the idea that you are somehow in the right here when a look at the facts of the situation, i.e you're the aggresssor, you've killed the most people, you taken your actions against the wishes of the international community - blatently put you firmly on the moral back foot?

once again, i'm here to remind you of a few things: our military isn't a bunch of white boys, but more notably you have submitted another failed attempt at moral equivalency;

If that is 'failed moral equivalency' then your position is simple moral illiteracy. Why can't you even give me a straight answer?

do explain how carbombings targeted at iraqis is "defending their own country."

It is the belief of those who carry out these attacks that they are killing traitors who would sell their country out to the imperialism of America.
These people don't want democracy, or more acuratly some of them don't want democracy at all and the majority (including the general populus) don't want American imposed democracy and the 'US friendly' puppet government they are (probably quite rightly) sure it will bring.
Is that so hard to understand? Who is to say they are 'wrong' for feeling this way? Look at how the US has treated them an other countries in the region in the past. If you felt an aggressive foreign powr was attempting to impose it's system of governace on you wouldn't you fight back? The point GW utterly misses in his rhetoric is that you can't enforce 'freedom' on people. If you do, it is by definition, not freedom! Is he so short sighted that he fails to see that? Are you?

Now, the general Iraqi population may well want some sort of democracy, in fact I'm sure they do, but at the same time, they don't want the US in their country a moment longer. Yes, this is a hard situation to reconcile, but do you not realise how you are making it worse? The US military and your government continually assert the goals of these 'terrorist groups' to the US public, but the fact is they are wrong, or just liars.

Like I said, these people are resisting American influence in any way they can. They see those who collaborate as traitors.

Simply branding these people as 'terrorists' without examining their motivations is a sure way to perpetuate the problem you already have.

 

[clancy98]

Stop Using Blogs As Factual Information

 

[$tinkle]

In fact most reports one reads seem to imply the role of foreign fighters has been vastly overplayed by the US.

wow.
now it's confirmed: your "source" is none other than the terrorist emboldening al-jazeera.
nicely played infidel.

If you read a few of those blogs I pointed you at the other day...

so now blogs have credence & credibility, just as long as it's an america bashing blog? i thought you were a champion of "news".

And once again, you automatically jump to the conclusion that anyone who comes to Iraq must be a 'terrorist'.

do forgive; there have been plenty of folks coming into iraq who were not terrorists; of course, they were all beheaded by terrorists, but i digress

All I'm trying to point out here is that there is a huge difference between a genuine terrorist and a person who wishes to fight the AMerican occupation.

so, if you go there to "fight the occupation", are you not alongside the terrorists? do you not see you will NOT be discriminated against? us marines are an equal-opportunity machine of lethal proportion. nonetheless, i don't want to shatter a dream for you that you & i may both espouse

Is America persuing a terroristic policy by being in Iraq?

wait...i know this one...gimme a minute

After all, you've killed thousands of innocent civiliians with no warning, you've destroyed thousands of peoples homes and businesses...

we don't target civilians, which is more than i can say for the insurgency (crap! i hate that word); also, you forgot "mosques" in structures destroyed. Gee, i wonder why we targeted them? Could it be that these bands of cowards can't be large enough in numbers to come close to forming a real army & fight a real war like real men? it isn't like they have to deploy resources 1/2-way across the world & bring their own water

you're the aggresssor, you've killed the most people, you taken your actions against the wishes of the international community - blatently put you firmly on the moral back foot?

nope. we're responding to the aggression (terrorism is still aggression in this part of the world); but yes, we failed the global test. i hope we never pass that one.

It is the belief of those who carry out these attacks that they are killing traitors who would sell their country out to the imperialism of America.

what kind of passive equivocation is that? you running for office? Let's see who sees things in the same hue of grey as you:

"Beware, beware, Iraqis, don't approach the (polling) centres of infidelity and vice. You are warned,"

and this:

Sulayman Khalid Darwish provides money and material to Al Qaeda and its group in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. “This terrorist financier is helping support Zarqawi, who has launched violent acts against our troops, coalition partners and the Iraqi people,”

These people don't want democracy,

right; they want mad mullahs, or some oligarchy. What's the worst that could come of that? (rape rooms, torture & killing of political dissenters, the usual stock responses)

If you felt an aggressive foreign powr was attempting to impose it's system of governace on you wouldn't you fight back?

another failure at moral equivalency; don't think too abstract, for you'll miss the forest for the trees. We're not just some arbitrary aggressive foreign power, and iraq wasn't just some form of government in a vacuum. until you understand this (hoping & praying), you'll be at the mercy of convenience & ruled by selfishness.

The point GW utterly misses in his rhetoric is that you can't enforce 'freedom' on people. If you do, it is by definition, not freedom! Is he so short sighted that he fails to see that? Are you?

it's not being imposed, but rather released upon them. we're getting all the folks (on record!) who want to stop the seeds from being sown. are you so short sighted that you fail to see that?

Now, the general Iraqi population may well want some sort of democracy, in fact I'm sure they do,

just 7 sentences ago, you said they don't. See, this is the dance of moral equivalence.

The US military and your government continually assert the goals of these 'terrorist groups' to the US public, but the fact is they are wrong, or just liars.

we don't assert them, we report their words. You've hit a rather inconvenient snag, as best stated by jordan's darling, abu masab al-zarqawi:

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

Like I said, these people are resisting American influence in any way they can. They see those who collaborate as traitors.

"these people" are terrorists, as i've demonstrated (mad props to zarqawi, i couldn't have done it w/o you)

Simply branding these people as 'terrorists' without examining their motivations is a sure way to perpetuate the problem you already have.

correct.
now that we've both examined their motivations, the conclusion is inescapable.

 

[Macrider]

Good catch by you on this - I mean they really should be giving us as MUCH coverage as possible of this event!
$40 million - the most expensive coronation in history - and our troops don't have proper body armor and have to scrounge through garbage dumps for steel to weld onto their humvees....

good call by our Glorious Leader!

 

[$tinkle]

Good catch by you on this - I mean they really should be giving us as MUCH coverage as possible of this event!
$40 million - the most expensive coronation in history - and our troops don't have proper body armor and have to scrounge through garbage dumps for steel to weld onto their humvees....

good call by our Glorious Leader!

most of that money was private donations. Speaking of private donations, why aren't you caterwauling alongside all the hollywood libs about this?

oh, they're too busy getting fitted for their tuxes & bejewelled for the oscars.

do you know why they don't have proper body & hummer armor? could it be lack of funding? voted down by congress? take a looksee at the appropriations votes & see if you can pin that on bush. I'm sure you can find a way.