I am an uneducated American who supports the war for no good reason (country, house) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2008, 01:11 AM   #61 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zombeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Here are hundreds of other polls.
Iraqanalysis.org » Info»Opinion Polls in Iraq
__________________
What It Is
Zombeels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:18 AM   #62 (permalink)
#1 Schuldinist.
 
Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 420
Default

I know I'm gonna get heat from this, but here it goes.


I believe it to be cruel and unjust what Saddam Hussein and his followers have done. I saw some of those pictures posted on that link, and I agree that nothing justified such deaths.

We have a strong military and everything needed to liberate countries under oppression, but what gives us that right? Sure, it's the good thing to do, but to put so much responsibility on ourselves? And along with weakening ourselves, we weaken the people we try to save, taking away life's challenges handed to them. Instead of trying to save every country being dictated, the people of those countries need to rise up and above the oppression, and they will benefit more from taking matters into their own hands rather than having us do it for them.

I'm sorry if this sounds cold, but that's just what I think. Every country for themselves. Unless Iraq had something to do with the attacks on 9/11, we should have stayed out.
__________________
I don't mean to dwell
But I can't help myself
When I feel the vibe
And taste a memory
Of a time in life
When years seemed to stand still
Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 03:15 AM   #63 (permalink)
Al Dente
 
SATCHMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,708
Default

" I have a very unpopular opinion in that I am for the war, but against the troops"
- Bill Hicks
SATCHMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 08:19 AM   #64 (permalink)
Lvl 70 Troll Hunter
 
tkpb938's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sunny Phoenix
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SATCHMO View Post
" I have a very unpopular opinion in that I am for the war, but against the troops"
- Bill Hicks
RIP
tkpb938 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 08:25 AM   #65 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zombeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 339
Default

YouTube - Interview with Dick Cheney (1994)
__________________
What It Is
Zombeels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 10:17 PM   #66 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Wrong. They are flat out lying. Every single poll conducted in Iraq has the majority of Iraqis not supporting the invasion and they want the US out.
Every single poll ever conducted? So you are telling me that the Iraqi's I spoke to were lying because your poll says so? I will admit that my friends dealt mostly with Iraqi's that were allowed within U.S. controlled ares so the opinions they got were slewed. Many polls are taken from specific groups achieving a slewed result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Wrong again. Most civilians killed bu US forces were from aerial bombardment. Also the US has targeted civilians.
The majority of civilians killed as a direct result of U.S. action were killed by splash damage from bombing. This does not change the fact that most civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by insurgent actions. The last I checked car bombs and roadside bombs were not in the U.S. arsenal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
The invasion of Iraq and WW2 are not even close to the same thing. Do not compare them.
Explain why. How are they not the same. Because you choose to ignore the similar points? They are more alike than you seem to think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Here are hundreds of other polls.
Iraqanalysis.org » Info»Opinion Polls in Iraq
Thank you for posting this link, I will be reading it for a while. I did notice that the front page is rather biased. When I dug a bit deeper, I found that the results were not as simple as it initially seemed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 View Post
I believe it to be cruel and unjust what Saddam Hussein and his followers have done. I saw some of those pictures posted on that link, and I agree that nothing justified such deaths.

We have a strong military and everything needed to liberate countries under oppression, but what gives us that right? Sure, it's the good thing to do, but to put so much responsibility on ourselves? And along with weakening ourselves, we weaken the people we try to save, taking away life's challenges handed to them. Instead of trying to save every country being dictated, the people of those countries need to rise up and above the oppression, and they will benefit more from taking matters into their own hands rather than having us do it for them.
Finally, after 7 pages, somebody actually address what I posted first. Somebody actually voiced an opinion about my first post.

Where was our right interfering in Europe during WW1 or WW2? We were attacked by Japan, our war was in the Pacific. What about Korea? The list goes on.

Turning a blind eye was what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much ground before we stepped in to help. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Nazi Germany to murder 10 million Jews. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Japan to murder 17 million "lesser" Asians. History repeats itself when ignored.
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 01:07 PM   #67 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zombeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
Every single poll ever conducted? So you are telling me that the Iraqi's I spoke to were lying because your poll says so? I will admit that my friends dealt mostly with Iraqi's that were allowed within U.S. controlled ares so the opinions they got were slewed.
Well you answered most of your question. Also if an armed US soldier asks an Iraqi asks them a question about the invasion/occupation the Iraqi will most likely give a positive response from fear of reprisal.
Quote:
Many polls are taken from specific groups achieving a slewed result.
But this is not one or a few polls. This is many. I also have links to many more.
Quote:
The majority of civilians killed as a direct result of U.S. action were killed by splash damage from bombing. This does not change the fact that most civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by insurgent actions. The last I checked car bombs and roadside bombs were not in the U.S. arsenal.
Where are your sources to show the deaths attributed to the actions of the insurgents have surpassed the deaths caused by the US forces? Also keep in mind the insurgency is a direct result of US policy.
Quote:
Explain why. How are they not the same. Because you choose to ignore the similar points? They are more alike than you seem to think.
Nazi Germany was a world power, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. How are they alike?
Quote:
Thank you for posting this link, I will be reading it for a while. I did notice that the front page is rather biased. When I dug a bit deeper, I found that the results were not as simple as it initially seemed.
Did you expect some pro-Bush or Pro-war site to post this. This is a site that posts all the data on polls with reference to Iraq. Where's the bias? They make no comments or opinions on them.
Quote:
Finally, after 7 pages, somebody actually address what I posted first. Somebody actually voiced an opinion about my first post.

Where was our right interfering in Europe during WW1 or WW2? We were attacked by Japan, our war was in the Pacific. What about Korea? The list goes on.

Turning a blind eye was what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much ground before we stepped in to help. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Nazi Germany to murder 10 million Jews. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Japan to murder 17 million "lesser" Asians. History repeats itself when ignored.
You need to decide whether you are going to discuss Iraq or WW2.
__________________
What It Is

Last edited by Zombeels; 04-15-2008 at 03:19 PM.
Zombeels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 02:27 PM   #68 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
Turning a blind eye was what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much ground before we stepped in to help. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Nazi Germany to murder 10 million Jews. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Japan to murder 17 million "lesser" Asians. History repeats itself when ignored.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. However, had we not been attacked we still would've had no business fighting said war. It isn't our job to be the world's police.
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 09:49 PM   #69 (permalink)
#1 Schuldinist.
 
Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
Turning a blind eye was what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much ground before we stepped in to help. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Nazi Germany to murder 10 million Jews. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Japan to murder 17 million "lesser" Asians. History repeats itself when ignored.
Ok, in WWII, as Unfan just said, we were attacked by Japan. We were forced into the war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. What did Iraq do to us? Nothing.

If we go forward and help every nation under tyranny, we weaken the citizens of those country in the long run by taking away that challenge of overcoming oppression. What if we were to establish a government for the Iraqi's to use for themselves? We establish, then we pull out and let them do the job. Sounds good, right? But who's to say they will be able to do the job? They weren't strong enough to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish their own government, and now they never will be.

The united states isn't every third world countries' mothering nation. We can only nurture so much before our tits are dried out and those nations have to walk on their own, and when they do, they will crumble, because we took away any challenges life had for them.

This is all the opinion of an individualist. Don't think I have no sympathy for the people who are suffering.
__________________
I don't mean to dwell
But I can't help myself
When I feel the vibe
And taste a memory
Of a time in life
When years seemed to stand still
Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 10:08 PM   #70 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Well you answered most of your question. Also if an armed US soldier asks an Iraqi asks them a question about the invasion/occupation the Iraqi will most likely give a positive response from fear of reprisal.
Let me share a story told to me by a friend. About 3 months into his first deployment he was hit by a roadside bomb. He took a lot of shrapnel to his face, neck and arms, his torso was protected. He was evacuated for treatment and returned to his unit 2 weeks later. He was of course angry about what happened, but not in the way you might think. He was talking to another soldier saying that it was bull**** that they were even there. If Iraqi's wanted us gone bad enough to attempt killing them, maybe they should just throw in the towel leave. He was approached by a civilian that was hired to work in the dining hall and told that he was wrong. He and most of the people he knew were thankful that we were there. He came to them to say thank you, he was being ignored while they were talking. He approached unarmed soldiers when he could have ignored them. But one person doesn't represent an entire country. He is simply a voice with a face, not a number on a poll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
But this is not one or a few polls. This is many. I also have links to many more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels that I moved from the bottom to address the same point. View Post
Did you expect some pro-Bush or Pro-war site to post this. This is a site that posts all the data on polls with reference to Iraq. Where's the bias? They make no comments or opinions on them.
When you read further into some of these polls, you get a different picture than the quick description. They didn't change any information, only show what would support the point they want seen. A few examples.

Quote:
# Mental Health Survey of US soldiers & Marines serving in Iraq (05 May 2007)

A team of US army mental health specialists surveyed (anonymously) 1320 soldiers and 447 Marines serving in Iraq, and conducted focus groups with US military personnel. The study, completed in November 2006 but released in redacted form in May 2007, found high levels of mental stress and ill-health, and high tolerance of ill-treatment and torture of Iraqis; and also fears about safety risks posed by Rules of Engagement perceived to be restrictive.
Approximately 10% of Soldiers and Marines report mistreating non-combatants (damaged/destroyed Iraqi property when not necessary or hit/kicked a non-combatant when not necessary)
20% of soldiers and 15% of Marines were diagnosed as suffering from a mental health problem (depression, anxiety, acute stress or other)
39% of Marines and 36% of soldiers believed "Torture should be allowed in order to gather important information about insurgents"
17% of soldiers/Marines believed "All non-combatants should be treated as insurgents"
only 38% of Marines and 47% of soldiers believed "All non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect
They chose to show things that would show U.S. soldiers to be heartless. Did they bother show the percentage of soldiers that are worried about their marriage? Or the number that have stood up to other soldiers doing the wrong thing? They are in the poll, just not shown in the quick blurb.

Quote:
Opinion poll for BBC, ABC News and NHK (10 Sept 2007)

About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.

Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'. Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago. Nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified. This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia. Growing disparity between Shia and Sunni satisfaction levels.
With as religiously divided as Iraq is, they would need to ensure that a true cross section is taken. 93% of Sunni Muslims agreeing with attacks on troops is not a shocking number. Of course you know that Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. Sunni's were living the good life with Saddam in charge. Shi'a of course don't see things the same. What about the results from the Kurdish population polled? They also didn't bother to show the trend of improved quality of life. In 3 years, the polls show mobile phone ownership increasing 14 times over. Of course why bother showing that.

Quote:
Nov 2006 poll of 2000 people in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, finding that:
95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces
Nearly 66 per cent of respondents thought violence would decrease if US forces were to leave
Thirty-eight per cent were also "unconfident" that Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, would be able to improve the situation in Iraq and nearly 90 per cent described the government's implementation of its commitments and promises as very poor
36.5 per cent said they felt the official security forces were unable to keep control in the country
Does this bother to mention that 81.9 percent of respondents were in Baghdad? How about the fact that most of Baghdad is Sunni Muslim?


Picking and choosing what to show is as unethical manipulating the results.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Nazi Germany was a world power, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. How are they alike?
Nazi Germany was not a world power until they had already murdered at least 2 million Jews. Not until they had already invaded and secured other nations were they considered a threat.
Iraq was a threat to neighboring nations.
Iraq was guilty of genocide.
Iraq was attempting to secure nuclear weapons and had, at different points, chemical weapons. They had them in the past and would not allow inspectors to verify that they did not have them prior to the invasion. These made them a threat to the entire world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
You need to decide whether you are going to discuss Iraq or WW2.
I am bringing up points from past wars to show the similarities. I'll say it again; history repeats itself.
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.